get_principle_prompts

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses that results are gated by an API key and that the return shape differs between pro and non-pro modes (prompts field vs. guide URL). It doesn't cover failure modes such as an unknown slug or what the non-pro URL payload looks like.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, mode-dependent return behavior, and the sibling alternative. No filler and the core action is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description must explain returns, and it does for both auth modes. What's missing is the behavior of the second parameter and any error condition, which matters for a 2-param lookup tool but is a modest gap.

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 coverage is 50%: slug has a description and locale is an enum with a default but no explanation of what it affects. The description never mentions locale or that it controls the language of the returned prompts, so half the parameters remain uninterpreted in both places.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get the AI prompts for a specific principle') and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_principle, which returns only the summary. An agent can route between the two without inspecting either schema.

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 names the condition that changes the outcome (UXUI_API_KEY set = pro mode returns prompt text; unset = returns the guide URL instead) and gives an explicit alternative ('Call get_principle first if you only need the summary'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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