getQueryBuilderPrompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a fallback path for clients lacking Prompts API support, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about the size, format, or contents of the returned prompt.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The action is front-loaded and the condition follows immediately, which is exactly the right ordering for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the purpose plus fallback condition are covered. Adequate for a zero-parameter read tool, though it could note what the prompt is intended to help build (query construction).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema matches the description, which correctly implies no arguments are needed to retrieve the system prompt.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the RushDB system prompt.' An agent immediately knows this is a prompt-retrieval tool, distinct from the data-focused siblings. It lacks any explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but the purpose itself is 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?

Provides an explicit conditional: 'Use this if your MCP client does not support the Prompts API.' This is clear when-to-use guidance that implies the alternative delivery path, though it doesn't state whether there are any other conditions or prerequisites.

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