list_prompts

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

The description does not contradict annotations (none provided) but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not state that the operation is read-only, describe pagination behavior, or mention any side effects. The brief parameter explanations ('Number of results', 'Page number') provide basic information but lack depth.

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 extremely concise, using a single sentence for the purpose and a bullet-like 'Args:' section for parameters. Every piece of text contributes directly to understanding the tool without wasted words.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of prompt objects), how pagination works (e.g., page numbers starting at 1, total count), or any ordering. This lack of return context and pagination details leaves the agent with significant gaps for correct usage.

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 description lists all three parameters with short explanations (e.g., 'Number of results' for limit). While this adds some meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, the explanations are surface-level and do not provide format constraints, typical values, or usage patterns. The schema coverage signal (0%) may be misleading as the description does cover all parameters, but the added value is marginal.

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 explicitly states 'List prompts in the prompt library', clearly identifying the verb (list) and resource (prompts). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities like datasets or scores.

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 like list_datasets, list_scores, etc. There is no mention of preconditions, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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