get_postcard_prompts

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the result is a bounded snapshot, limited to current public prompts, which clarifies scope and non-exhaustiveness.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The key scope descriptors ('bounded', 'current', 'public', 'postcard prompts') are all front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 no-argument read-only getter with strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be slightly more explicit about the return shape or what 'bounded' means in practice, but it gives an agent enough context to understand the purpose and interpret the result.

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 schema leaves nothing undocumented and the description has no parameter meanings to add. Per the baseline for a zero-parameter tool, this is a 4.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('current public postcard prompts'), with 'bounded snapshot' communicating scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_postcards, which target postcards themselves rather than prompts.

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 guidance is given about when to select this tool over alternatives such as browse_postcards or search_public_content, and there are no explicit exclusions or conditions. The only implied use is 'when you need current public prompt snapshots,' but the description never states this.

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