get_prompt_by_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral details. It explicitly states the return format ('Dict containing the prompt details and template') and the error behavior ('or an error message'). This discloses the key outcome and failure mode for a simple read operation, though it does not mention side effects (likely none) or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. It contains no fluff or redundant commentary; every line serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-organized.

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's simplicity — one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema — the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return/error behavior. It could be more explicit about when to use it relative to list_prompts (e.g., 'when you know the exact name'), but the context signals and description are sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 100% — both the schema and the description describe prompt_name identically ('The exact name of the prompt to retrieve'). The description's 'Args' section adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage without providing extra detail like examples, formatting, or edge-case behavior.

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 starts with 'Get a specific prompt by its exact name', which uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('prompt') and emphasizes 'specific' and 'exact name'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_prompts (which lists prompts) and push_prompt (which creates/updates), and gives immediate clarity about its scope.

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 phrase 'by its exact name' conveys the usage context: the user must know the precise prompt name to retrieve. It implicitly contrasts with list_prompts for enumeration, but it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need one prompt by name, use list_prompts to see all prompts'. Since the context is clear and there are no exclusions, this earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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