random_prompt

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the random-selection behavior and the optional narrowing, but it does not disclose edge cases like no matching prompts, whether repeats are possible, or what exactly is returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: the action, the randomness, and the optional filters are all communicated efficiently.

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 optional-parameter tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return shape and behavior when no prompt matches the filters. It also does not point to sibling list_* tools as sources for valid filter values.

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%, so the description must compensate. It names all three parameters and explains their shared role as narrowing filters, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks detail on value formats, accepted sources, or combination behavior.

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 ('Pick') and resource ('a random prompt'), making the core purpose clear. The randomness distinguishes it from siblings like get_prompt and search_prompts, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'optionally narrowed by category, persona, or tag' implies when filters should be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_prompts or get_prompt. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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