List the prompts worth adding next

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations by explaining that results are grouped by prompt group and sorted by strongest demand first. It also describes the informational payload (search demand, purchase proximity, brand fit). It does not mention error conditions or pagination, but for a read-only listing this is acceptable.

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 four sentences and each sentence carries distinct information: purpose, rationale content, grouping/sorting, and usage trigger. It is somewhat wordy ('Prompts PromptEye suggests the active project start tracking') but avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 listing tool with one optional filter, the description explains what the returned suggestions contain (reasons, demand data, grouping, sorting) and when to call it. It assumes an active project exists but that is consistent with sibling tools like get_active_project. No output schema exists, so the description's explanation of returned fields is helpful.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional groupId parameter with 100% coverage and a clear description. The tool description mentions grouping by prompt group, which aligns with the filter, but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 this tool lists prompt suggestions for the active project that are still awaiting a decision, with reasons for each suggestion. It distinguishes itself from list_prompts (existing prompts) by emphasizing 'suggested' and 'worth adding next'. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 final sentence 'Call this when asked what to monitor next' provides an explicit trigger. It implies the active project context, so an agent knows it applies to the currently selected project. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is sufficient.

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