list_prompts

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 effectively describes the tool's read-only nature (retrieves information) and error conditions (connection failures), but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or performance characteristics. It adds useful context beyond basic functionality but is not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, raises) and avoids redundancy. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise, as some details (like 'success: True') might be inferred from context. Overall, it's efficient but has minor verbosity in the output description.

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 (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and error conditions, which is sufficient for a listing tool. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description doesn't need to duplicate that information.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inputs, earning a baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools that avoid unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 specific action ('List all prompts') and resource ('available on the connected MCP server'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_prompt' (which retrieves a single prompt) and 'list_tools' (which lists tools rather than prompts). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 context by specifying 'on the connected MCP server' and mentions prerequisites ('if not connected... returns error'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_prompt' or 'list_tools'. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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