list_prompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It transparently reveals PII scrubbing with placeholder examples, the hard limit cap at 500, exact-match semantics for project/session/account, the full since/until date grammar including relative durations, and the unavailability of oldest-first ordering. This is extensive and unusually candid.

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 long but information-dense; every clause maps to a schema parameter, an invocation constraint, or a user need. It front-loads the core operation and ordering immediately, then systematically covers PII handling, filtering, pagination, date formats, and the return shape without filler or repetition.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is remarkably complete. It covers ordering, filtering, paging, source enumeration, exact-match semantics, date parsing variants, and the response envelope, while referencing sibling tools for discoverability. The only minor omission is a direct contrast with search_prompts, but the provided output schema and extreme specificity make the tool safely invocable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It enumerates every valid source value, explains the exact-match behavior for project/session/account, defines the limit cap, offset paging, and the complete since/until input grammar. Every parameter in the schema is given meaningful semantic context beyond its type and default.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List captured prompts, newest first'. It adds behavioral detail (oldest first is not offered, page with offset) and usage context ('read what the user actually asked, in order'), which distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings like search_prompts.

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 gives clear context: 'Use it to read what the user actually asked, in order, about a project or a session' and points to list_sessions/list_sources for discovering valid exact-match values. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with search_prompts/get_prompt, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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