get_prompts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation and adds useful transparency by enumerating returned fields (question, description, answers_count, books_count). It does not discuss pagination behavior or side effects, but 'List' sufficiently signals a non-mutating call.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, the second covers optional filtering, and the third documents the return fields, with no 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?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, optional filter, and return fields. There is no output schema, so the explicit return-field list helps compensate. It could be slightly stronger by noting how this relates to answer_prompt, but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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 documents limit, offset, and featured. The description only restates the featured filter and does not add meaningful new meaning beyond the parameter schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 specific action ('List community book prompts') and a clear resource, which an agent can distinguish from answer_prompt by the verb 'list'. However, it does not explicitly call out sibling tools or differentiate itself beyond the implied contrast, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need to list community book prompts rather than answer one. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as answer_prompt, though the optional featured filter gives some context about filtering behavior.

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