get_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavior context by stating the return format (JSON with messages array) and that arguments should be a dict mapping names to values. However, it does not disclose potential errors or side effects.

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 brief with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the second and third could be combined without loss.

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 output schema exists and parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description provides adequate context. However, it could mention that the tool expects a valid prompt name and what happens if it is not found.

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%, providing baseline. The description adds slight value by clarifying that arguments should be a dict mapping names to values, but this is already implied by the object type in the schema.

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 the verb 'get' and resource 'prompt', and specifies that arguments are optional. It effectively communicates the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_prompts. The description implies that the user must know the prompt name, but it does not explain prerequisites or context.

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