get_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating no destructive side effects. Description adds value by specifying return format ('JSON with a messages array') and argument structure, which annotations do not cover. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds distinct information: what it does, what it returns, and how to provide arguments.

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 that an output schema exists, description appropriately mentions the return format. It covers input parameters and basic behavior. Could mention error cases or prompt absence, but overall sufficient for a simple read-only tool with good annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning by stating 'Arguments should be provided as a dict mapping argument names to values', which clarifies the structure of the optional object parameter beyond the schema's generic 'object' type.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'prompt', and method 'by name with optional arguments'. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'list_prompts' which lists prompts, as this tool retrieves a single specific prompt. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving a specific prompt by name and notes optional arguments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_prompts' nor mention conditions like prompt existence. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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