list_prompts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'fetches' with filtering. It lacks critical behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence followed by well-organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has an output schema (returns a dictionary with prompts and metadata), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and only basic parameter info, it misses behavioral context like auth or pagination. For a simple fetch tool, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in operational guidance.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'is_public' filters by prompt visibility with specific string values ('true'/'false') and default, and 'limit' sets the maximum number of prompts with its default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('Fetch') and resource ('prompts from LangSmith') with optional filtering, making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_prompt_by_name' or 'push_prompt', which would require more specific scope definition.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_prompt_by_name' for specific prompts or 'push_prompt' for creating prompts. The description mentions filtering but doesn't clarify use cases or prerequisites, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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