get_prompt

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'retrieves' but does not state if it is read-only, safe, or if it requires any permissions. There is no mention of side effects or idempotency, which is a notable gap for a retrieval tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's primary purpose, and the second provides typical usage context. Information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, the input format, and typical usage. However, it could hint at the return value format.

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 has 0% description coverage for the parameter, but the description clarifies that the parameter is a unique task number (e.g., 'CRD-1') and matches the pattern. This adds some semantic value beyond the schema pattern, but does not fully describe the parameter's purpose or constraints.

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 states it retrieves specific instructions/prompt for a task, using a unique task number. It clearly identifies the resource and action, and the example number format helps. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_task, which might retrieve task details.

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 says 'typically used to understand the detailed requirements' which gives some context. But it does not provide when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., get_task) or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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