devbook_list_prompts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no statement of read-only safety, no ordering of results, no pagination behavior, no indication of what fields a prompt record contains. The word 'List' implies a non-mutating read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.

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 no filler; the verb and resource come first and the qualifiers trail. It is efficiently sized for the tool, though it is thin rather than deliberately structured.

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?

Six optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description is the only place to learn about return contents, ordering, and default behavior — and it says nothing about them. The schema covers parameter meaning well, so the entry is workable, but a reader still cannot predict what a call returns or how results are ordered.

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 explains q, limit, offset, scope, pinned, and project_id in more detail than the description does. The description merely restates the filter dimensions at a higher level ('full-text search, project, standalone scope, or pinned status') without adding syntax, interaction, or defaulting behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb triad ('List, filter, and search') and names the exact resource ('prompts in Devbook'), then enumerates the four filterable dimensions. That makes it easy to separate from devbook_get_prompt (single retrieval), devbook_create_prompt, or devbook_list_projects, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 enumerated filter dimensions imply when each filter is useful ('standalone scope', 'pinned status', 'project id'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion telling the agent to use devbook_get_prompt when it already has an ID, and no statement of prerequisites.

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