get_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes the full prompt text and the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention error behavior, response structure beyond the text, or any prerequisites, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence of 13 words that front-loads the action ('Get a prompt'), then specifies the key ('numeric ID') and the result scope ('full prompt text'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate but not complete. With no output schema, it does not specify whether other prompt metadata is returned or how errors (e.g., nonexistent ID) are surfaced, leaving some agent-relevant details unstated.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the sole 'id' parameter. The description adds no real meaning beyond the schema's integer type — it merely restates 'numeric ID' and provides no constraints, origin, or formatting guidance for the parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('prompt'), and the retrieval key ('numeric ID'), while clarifying that the result includes the full prompt text. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like search_prompts and random_prompt, which imply different lookup modes.

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 the correct usage context: when an agent has a numeric prompt ID and needs the full prompt text, rather than searching or fetching a random prompt. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the ID-based retrieval criterion provides clear context.

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