compras_obter_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 tool returns the content of PromptMessage[0], describes error handling (returns '_erro' with diagnostic instead of exception), and specifies the return structure. Though it does not mention side effects or idempotency, the description covers the essential behavioral traits for a prompt-rendering tool.

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 concise at about five sentences, with the primary purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return content explanation, return structure, and error handling. No superfluous information.

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 (rendering a prompt) and the presence of an output schema described in the description, the information is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it (including referencing the sibling listing tool), the return format, and error behavior. The sibling list is large, but the description provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The schema already provides examples, references to list_prompts, and type constraints. The description's role is fulfilled by the schema, so no extra credit.

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 clearly states 'Renderiza um MCP Prompt e devolve o texto pronto.' This is a specific verb+resource pair. It further explains the returned text is a script that guides the LLM to call other tools, distinguishing it from data-retrieval tools. The sibling list includes compras_listar_prompts, but this tool's purpose of rendering a specific prompt is distinct.

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 explains that after obtaining the prompt text, the LLM typically follows its instructions to call other tools. It also advises using compras_listar_prompts to discover available prompt names. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, leaving a minor gap in exclusion guidance.

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