list_prompts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile fully. The description adds only the 'local catalog' framing, which reinforces the closed-world nature but provides little beyond the structured data. No return shape or rate/limit context is given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the verb and both resource types with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only listing tool whose annotations already carry the behavioral profile, the description is nearly sufficient. With no output schema, it could briefly note what each listed entry contains, but the core intent is complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 and no parameter documentation is required. The description does not need to compensate for anything schema-wise.

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 a specific verb (List) and precise resources (prompt templates and assistant blueprints) scoped to a local catalog, so its function is unambiguous. It does not, however, name the sibling tools render_prompt or get_assistant to sharpen the distinction, leaving that differentiation to inference.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus render_prompt or get_assistant, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied: an agent would reasonably list the catalog before fetching or rendering an item, but this is not stated.

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