MCP Dev MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool renders prompts with arguments, which clarifies the 'prompt_args' parameter's purpose. Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict annotations and adds useful operational context about rendering behavior.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement in the first sentence, followed by a usage guideline in the second sentence. The Args/Returns sections are formatted but not part of the description text itself. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is mostly complete. It explains the core purpose and rendering behavior well. However, it doesn't mention what happens if the prompt doesn't exist or if arguments are invalid, which could be helpful context despite the annotations covering safety aspects.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'provided arguments' for 'prompt_args', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or semantic details. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is complete.

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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'retrieve', 'render') and resource ('a specific prompt from a target MCP server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_prompts' (which lists prompts) by specifying retrieval of a single prompt with template rendering.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to retrieve and render a prompt template with provided arguments'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for rendering prompts rather than just listing them, but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.

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