wafle_prompts_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the return structure (name, description, argument schema) but no deeper behavioral details like pagination or rate limits, which are likely unnecessary for this simple listing operation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action 'List', and every sentence adds value: what it lists, what it returns, and a useful client scenario. No fluff or redundancy.

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 no parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource, return content, and a specific use case. Nothing critical is missing.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. With no params to document, the description cannot add parameter semantics, but the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing lacking.

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 server-defined prompts and specifies what is returned (name, description, argument schema). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on ads, orders, agents, etc., and is the only prompt-listing tool.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Useful for clients that don't surface the prompts/list MCP method.' This implies the alternative (using the native MCP method) and when to prefer this tool, though it lacks a full when-not/alternatives explanation.

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