Prismism Account Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates the read-only nature ('Get') and the specific data returned, but omits information about rate limiting, caching behavior, or authentication requirements that would be necessary for a complete behavioral profile.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the action verb front-loaded. The em-dash concisely lists return fields without redundant phrasing. Every element earns its place in guiding tool selection.

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 (zero parameters) and lack of output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the expected return fields (name, email, plan, storage). For a read-only account introspection tool, this provides sufficient context for invocation, though explicit authentication context would improve it to a 5.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameters, maintaining consistency with the empty 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 uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'account details' and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (name, email, plan, storage usage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'prismism_get' (generic getter) and 'prismism_delete' by focusing specifically on account retrieval.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prismism_get', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements. The agent must infer usage solely from the resource specificity.

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