get_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states it 'gets' a prompt, implying a read operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data or raw text, or what happens with invalid prompt names. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides specific examples in a bullet-like format. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the examples more smoothly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the prompts are returned in (markdown text? structured data?), whether there are additional prompts beyond the two listed, or how this tool fits within the codebase context alongside sibling testing/analysis tools. For a tool in a development environment with multiple sibling tools, more contextual information would be helpful.

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% with a single enum parameter clearly documented. The description lists the two available prompts ('test_guide.md' and 'code_analysis'), which aligns with the enum values but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Get a prompt designed for this codebase' with specific examples of what prompts are available. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('prompt'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'all_tests' or 'check_format' which appear to be testing/analysis tools rather than prompt retrieval tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it lists available prompts, it doesn't explain when to retrieve prompts versus using sibling tools like 'test_file' or 'code_analysis' (if that's a sibling tool's function). There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or alternative approaches.

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