Get onboarding prompt

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds only the mildly useful facts that the prompt set is fixed at five and that it is onboarding-oriented. It says nothing about return format, whether the prompt ID space is enumerable, or how deviceId/deviceName affect the result.

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 padding or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though the terseness reflects omitted content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

There is no output schema, no parameter documentation, and only one sentence of prose for a four-parameter tool. An agent cannot know which prompt IDs are valid, what a retrieved prompt looks like, or what role deviceId and deviceName play. The definition is under-specified for the tool's actual surface.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and it largely does not. 'One of five' faintly implies promptId is a selector, but no valid IDs, format, or meaning of deviceId/deviceName is given, and the required action constant is never mentioned. This leaves the two undocumented optional parameters completely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieves one of five built-in onboarding prompts. The count and 'onboarding' qualifier scope it precisely, which is enough to tell it apart from the large sibling list, none of which deal with prompts. It stops short of naming any alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for fetching built-in onboarding prompts. There is no indication of when this is preferable to, say, give_feedback_to_raccoon or another config-style call.

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