get_prompt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the non-obvious fallback behavior and the input sources ('flow.md and ranked locators'). It could be more explicit about whether synthesis has side effects or writes files, but the main conditional behavior is transparent.

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 well-structured sentence with the primary behavior front-loaded and the fallback appended after a semicolon. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no repeated or irrelevant content.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains its returned output and fallback behavior well. It could slightly strengthen completeness by stating the return format, but the low tool complexity and clear sources make it largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both 'session' and 'framework' are already documented structurally. The description independently references session behavior and prompt synthesis sources but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it returns PROMPT.md if present, and otherwise synthesizes a test-generation prompt. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_sessions and read_session by positioning it as the session-prompt provider.

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 description makes its internal branch explicit: PROMPT.md is returned if present, otherwise a prompt is synthesized. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over list_sessions, read_session, or map_locator, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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