usePrompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries that burden. It explains the process of fetching, following, variable substitution, and asking for missing values. However, it doesn't describe the return format or error behavior when the prompt ID doesn't exist.

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 moderately concise, with a few sentences covering purpose, example, and variable handling. The grammar error is minor, and no sentence is superfluous.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for invocation: when to use, how to fill variables, and what to do if values are missing. It could mention what the tool returns, but it's not critical for execution.

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 schema describes the 'id' parameter minimally, but the description adds valuable context: how the ID corresponds to a prompt tag in user messages, and how template variables in the prompt are populated from session context.

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 fetches a prompt and follows its instructions, with a concrete example ('>> new-journal-entry' maps to id 'new-journal-entry'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createPrompt and searchPrompts.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition ('If the user has sent a message containing a prompt tag') and demonstrates usage with an example. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings.

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