get_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 the return format (JSON with messages array) and specifies that arguments should be provided as a dict. This is sufficient for a read operation, though it does not mention error handling or access requirements.

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 with no extraneous content. Each sentence serves a clear purpose: stating the action, the return format, and parameter usage.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return format. An output schema exists, so the return type is further specified. Missing details like error conditions are minor, given the tool's simplicity.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that arguments should be a dict mapping names to values, which clarifies the structure beyond the schema's 'Optional arguments for the prompt'.

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 it retrieves a prompt by name and returns the rendered prompt as JSON with a messages array. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_prompts (which lists prompts) and build_request_url (which builds URLs).

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 implies using this tool to get a specific prompt with optional arguments, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools is present but not leveraged in the description.

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