list_custom_prompts

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. It only states 'List' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention that the operation is non-mutating, nor does it disclose any side effects, ordering, pagination, or limits. For a simple list tool this may be acceptable, but it lacks explicit behavioral context such as 'does not modify any prompts' or 'returns only user-owned prompts'.

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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. It does not over-explain, but there is a slight lack of behavioral detail that could make it more informative without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema that defines return values, and the input schema fully documents the only parameter. The description clarifies the scope ('this user's') which is important. For a lightweight list operation, everything an agent needs to call it correctly is present. Missing details like ordering are minor and likely covered by the output schema.

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% because the only parameter (include_content) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description itself does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema covers its meaning and default behavior. Since the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, the baseline of 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 'List this user's custom prompt library.' is specific: it names the verb (list), the resource (custom prompt library), and the scope ('this user's'). It clearly distinguishes the operation from get_custom_prompt (which retrieves a single prompt) and from the file-based list_prompt_files by specifying 'custom prompt library' as a distinct concept. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_custom_prompt or list_prompt_files. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. An agent must infer from the name and the sibling list, which is not explicitly supported by the description.

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