Check User Prompts

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

The description discloses that a pending prompt is 'returned and then cleared', which is a state-changing operation. This contradicts the annotations readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, as consuming the prompt makes the operation non-repeatable in response and not read-only. This is an annotation contradiction.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, behavior, and usage. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without fluff.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, the critical side effect (clearing), and the polling use case. It does not spell out the response format when no prompt exists, but for a simple zero-parameter poller this is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds 'No arguments required', which is mildly redundant but not harmful. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('user prompts via the client dashboard'), clearly distinguishing this polling tool from the design-focused sibling tools. It states exactly what the tool does in the first sentence.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this to periodically poll for user instructions sent from the browser client.' This gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool. Since no sibling tool serves this function, mentioning alternatives is unnecessary.

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