read_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Read' clearly conveys a non-mutating read operation, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose what happens for invalid or missing prompt_id, whether the full content or metadata is returned, or any error behavior. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Read the content') and directly states the target ('a specific prompt'). 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 one-parameter read tool, the description is reasonably complete, but the absence of an output schema means the agent does not know what response to expect (e.g., plain text, JSON payload, full prompt object). The description states the action but leaves the return format and edge-case behavior to inference, which is a noticeable gap for a tool with no structured output definition.

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% — the schema already documents prompt_id as 'ID of the prompt to read.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. No extra context about the parameter format or restrictions is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('content of a specific prompt'). It distinguishes itself from sibling listing/search tools by emphasizing 'a specific prompt,' implying retrieval by ID rather than enumeration. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself with them.

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 'specific prompt' implies that the tool is used when the caller already has a prompt_id and wants its content, which is a clear context. But there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_prompts, search_prompts_by_title, get_prompts_by_tag, or get_prompts_by_type, and no mention of prerequisites for obtaining the ID.

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