get_prompt_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context — it explains this exists as a fallback for prompt-incapable clients — but says nothing about how arguments are applied or what the rendered text looks like.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the audience qualifier trailing as a subordinate clause. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The one thing left implicit is how the optional 'arguments' object is threaded into the rendered prompt, a mild gap for a 2-parameter 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% and the 'name' parameter even enumerates the valid prompt names in its description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('render') plus specific resource ('one of this server's prompts') and output form ('as text'). It is unambiguous and no sibling tool in the list deals with prompts, so no explicit differentiation is needed, though none is offered.

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?

States the selecting condition clearly: clients that can't fetch MCP prompts mid-task. That is an explicit when-to-use rule, but there are no named alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions (e.g. what a prompt-capable client should do instead).

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