List the prompt library

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description redundantly restates this with 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free.' However, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the scope of the list ('active organization', 'visible system and organization templates plus learned winner evidence') and noting it covers the 'complete inventory.' This informs expected output semantics without contradicting annotations.

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 concise: two informative sentences plus a CAPABILITY tag. It front-loads the primary function in the first sentence, adds usage distinction in the second, and the tag provides a safety summary. No wasted words.

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 simple list tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the scope, the alternative tool, and the non-destructive nature. The sibling context is sufficiently differentiated, and no additional return-format or pagination details are necessary given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and the description needs to explain no inputs. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description adequately covers parameter semantics by not requiring anything more; schema coverage is 100% trivially.

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 tool lists the active organization prompt library, specifically including visible system and organization templates and learned winner evidence. It uses a specific verb and resource, and also distinguishes itself from prompt_suggest, making its purpose 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 explicitly contrasts with prompt_suggest: 'Use prompt_suggest for the ranked generation default and this tool to inspect the complete inventory.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative, and the 'side-effect-free' note reinforces safe inspection use.

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