aiwatcher_prompt_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention what the response contains, whether authentication is needed, or any edge cases. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, though it lacks additional structured detail that could make it more useful.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description provides very little context about the expected response or usage flow. It does not mention the optional 'body' and 'query' parameters' purpose, nor any prerequisites like having a valid prompt ID. For a read tool, this is incomplete but not severely misleading.

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%, with 'id' described as 'AI Search Watcher prompt ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 'Get AI Search Watcher prompt detail' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (prompt detail), which is distinct from sibling tools like monitor detail or prompt deletion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself by mentioning alternatives or the scope of 'detail', so it falls slightly short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'aiwatcher_monitor_prompts' or 'aiwatcher_generate_prompts'. The description only states what it does, not why or when to choose it, leaving the agent without contextual decision support.

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