list_prompts

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral facts—never-run prompts are returned, and get_results cannot see them—and lists return fields. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, pagination/limits, or whether deleted prompts are excluded, which is relevant given sibling list_deleted_prompts.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and outputs, and the second gives targeted usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with two documented params and no output schema, the description covers the key return fields, brand scoping, and the non-obvious inclusion of never-run prompts. It is slightly incomplete about whether deleted prompts are included or excluded and about pagination, but these are minor for a basic listing call.

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?

Both parameters already have descriptions in the schema (brandId and optional topicId), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaningful additional parameter guidance beyond restating the brand scope and the purpose of discovering prompt ids.

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 states a precise verb and resource ('List all prompts for a brand') and enumerates the returned fields: ids, text, topic, target page, last run date, and paused state. It also distinguishes from get_results by noting never-run prompts are visible here but not there.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool: to discover prompt ids for update_prompt, update_prompts, and delete_prompts. It also contrasts with get_results for never-run prompts, giving the agent enough direction to pick the correct sibling without inference.

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