list_prompts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates the operation as a paginated, read-only listing scoped to the user's Respan organization, and adds useful behavioral context about response fields, versioning, and the id being reusable in other prompt operations. It does not detail ordering or potential side-effect edge cases, but the list semantics are clear.

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 a clear opening, a response-fields list, and a pointer to alternatives. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('List all prompts...' and 'Returns a paginated list...'), but the overall size and front-loaded organization are appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the response-field enumeration is valuable and makes the return format discoverable. The description also provides version semantics and distinguishes this list tool from sibling detail/list tools. Minor gaps like default ordering are not critical for a simple paginated list operation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description mentions pagination but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for page and page_size, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all prompts in the Respan organization and enumerates the response fields. It also distinguishes itself from related sibling tools by explicitly pointing to get_prompt_detail and list_prompt_versions for different operations.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_prompt_detail to see full prompt content, or list_prompt_versions to see all versions.' It also clarifies that this returns a summary list rather than full prompt content, making the usage context clear.

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