Get Prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (success, prompt, metadata) and enumerates error scenarios (not_connected, prompt_not_found, invalid_arguments, execution_error). It does not mention side effects (likely none as it's a getter) but covers the key behavioral aspects an agent needs.

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 structured with a clear opening statement, followed by Returns and Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While somewhat lengthy, the information is organized and each section serves a purpose, so it earns its place without being wasteful.

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 covers return format and error cases comprehensively. It mentions the need for a connection and lists specific error keys. For a simple retrieval tool with a simple input schema, this is sufficient. It does not elaborate on argument format beyond 'dictionary', but that is acceptable given the flexibility implied by additionalProperties. The presence of an output schema (implied by the return description) reduces the burden on the description.

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 description coverage is 100% – both 'name' and 'arguments' are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain the structure or expected values of the arguments dictionary beyond the schema's 'additionalProperties: true'.

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 action: 'Get a rendered prompt from the connected MCP server' and 'Retrieves a prompt by name with the provided arguments and returns the rendered prompt messages.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_prompts (which lists prompts) and call_tool (which calls tools) by focusing on rendering a specific prompt.

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 (requires a connection, uses prompt name and arguments) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as execute_prompt_with_llm or list_prompts. It doesn't say when to use this tool versus others, nor does it provide exclusions. The context is clear but 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.