listPrompts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all prompt IDs and their content, which is useful, but does not mention potential behaviors like read-only safety, pagination, or any limitations. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence clarifies return content. No wasted words.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns and its scope. It could include more context about sorting or use cases, but for a simple list operation, it is reasonably complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is unnecessary. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0 params, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool's verb (List) and resource (all available Teleprompter prompts), and specifies the return includes prompt IDs and content. This distinguishes it from siblings like searchPrompts (which would imply filtering) and createPrompt/usePrompt.

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 usage for retrieving all prompts but does not explicitly contrast with searchPrompts or state when to prefer this over alternatives. The phrase 'all available' hints at scope, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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