list_prompts

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (JSON with metadata) and the execution environment, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe to call repeatedly, or requires any permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant omission that could lead an agent to assume incorrectly about side effects or safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, but it includes a fragment 'Catalog entry.' that adds little value and is not the most informative. The core action 'List all available prompts' appears after the fragment, making it less front-loaded than ideal. It is concise but could be restructured to lead with the key action and remove redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless list tool, the description provides enough information to call it correctly: it states the action, the resource, the output format (JSON with prompt metadata including name, description, and optional arguments), and the execution environment. Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the expected fields. It is sufficiently complete for a simple tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has no parameters, so the input schema (empty object) fully covers the parameter space. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. With no parameters, the baseline score of 4 is justified because there is nothing to clarify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'List all available prompts' and specifies the resource (prompts). It also mentions the return type (JSON with prompt metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_prompt (which retrieves a single prompt) and list_resources (which lists a different resource type). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context that the tool runs in the Kuudo deployment, which is a useful contextual clue, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. While the name and action imply when to use it, there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternative tools. This is a moderate gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.