get_prompt_detail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Retrieve' implies read-only behavior, and the description lists the return fields, providing a good sense of what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes will be made, nor does it mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits. For a pure get tool, this is acceptable but could be more explicit about the read-only nature.

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 and concise. It starts with a clear purpose, then lists return fields in a bulleted manner that is easy to scan, and ends with a practical tip. Every sentence provides useful information with no redundancy. The length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool, making it highly efficient.

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 only one required parameter, no annotations bias, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does: it lists all returned fields, explains the more complex 'messages' structure, and provides usage guidance. This makes the tool completely understandable for an agent without needing additional context.

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 one parameter with full description coverage ('prompt_id' described as 'Unique prompt identifier (from list_prompts)'). The description adds helpful guidance on how to obtain this ID ('Use list_prompts first to find the prompt_id'), which enhances the schema meaning. This goes beyond the baseline for fully described parameters, so it earns a 4.

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 begins with 'Retrieve detailed information about a specific prompt' which uses a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (prompt). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_prompts (which lists all prompts) and get_prompt_version_detail (which lists version details) by emphasizing 'detailed information' and listing the full set of fields returned, making the specificity clear.

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 includes explicit guidance 'Use list_prompts first to find the prompt_id,' which tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternative tools like get_prompt_version_detail, so it is clear but lacks exclusions, warranting a score of 4.

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