get_custom_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read, which implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not elaborate on any security requirements, rate limits, error behavior (e.g., what if the prompt doesn't exist), or the exact content returned (though the output schema covers the return structure). The minimal 'Read' leaves too much to inference for a tool with zero annotation support.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately communicates the verb, resource, and qualifier. Perfectly concise for a simple get-by-id tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, a defined output schema, and a clear action), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention any potential failure modes, auth requirements, or the relationship to list_custom_prompts beyond what the schema provides. For a read operation without annotations, a bit more context (e.g., 'returns the full prompt content including all fields') would make it more 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description explicitly states the field is 'The prompt UUID, from `list_custom_prompts`' – this adds provenance and context beyond just the type. The tool description itself does not add further parameter detail, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('custom prompt'), and a precise scope ('in full, by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_custom_prompts (which lists prompts) and the create/update/delete counterparts. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to inspect the schema.

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 implies usage by 'by id', suggesting the agent must have a prompt UUID, and the schema clarifies that the id comes from list_custom_prompts. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., when you need the full prompt vs. a summary, or when to use list_custom_prompts instead). The guidance is implied but not made explicit.

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