openwebui_list_prompts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields ('command, title, and a content preview') but does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation. The verb 'List' implies non-destructive behavior, but there is no explicit mention of side effects, limitations, or special behaviors beyond the basic function.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second clarifies the domain and output. There is no redundant text or filler, making it highly concise and well-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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, the domain concept of prompts, and the return fields. It explicitly states 'List all' and gives the fields returned, providing enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly without external documentation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description correctly adds no parameter-related information. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description's mention of what is returned is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect from invoking the 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 starts with 'List all saved prompts in Open WebUI,' which clearly specifies the action (List), resource (saved prompts), and context (Open WebUI). It also differentiates from sibling list tools like openwebui_list_chats and openwebui_list_files by focusing on prompts, and even explains what prompts are with an example command.

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 description implies usage: if you need to see saved prompts, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as openwebui_create_prompt/openwebui_delete_prompt for modifying prompts. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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