list_prps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List and search' implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is safe, describe pagination behavior, or mention that includeStats and includeArchonStatus may trigger additional workload or external calls. The description is too thin to convey meaningful behavioral information.

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, well-formed sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource, though the phrase 'advanced filtering and sorting capabilities' is somewhat generic and could be more specific.

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?

The tool has 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, yet the description is only one line. It does not explain what PRPs are, what 'advanced filtering' entails, or what kind of results the agent should expect. The context provided by sibling tools suggests PRPs are a known entity, but the description itself is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 10 parameters, including defaults and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to 'advanced filtering and sorting capabilities' adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema already documents, and does not explain parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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 clearly identifies the verb (list and search) and the resource (PRPs), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_templates by resource type. However, it lacks any definition or expansion of what PRPs are, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_prp, update_prp, or search_templates. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios, leaving the agent without decision support.

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