get_prompt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It states the tool shows the current prompt, but it does not disclose whether it is read-only, whether it requires any authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The minimal information does not add value beyond the name.

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 very concise (one line), but it is front-loaded with the purpose. The inclusion of '[query]' in parentheses seems like a placeholder and could be confusing. Overall, it is efficient but slightly unclear due to the Spanish language and the stray bracket.

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 the simplicity of the tool (no parameters), the description is somewhat complete in stating the action. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what the agent will receive (e.g., the prompt text). This leaves a gap for an AI agent to know what the invocation yields.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline score is 3, and the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no additional semantics, but no deficiency either.

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: 'Ver prompt actual — Muestra el prompt actual de la IA'. The verb 'mostrar' (show) and resource 'prompt actual' (current prompt) are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like save_prompt, improve_prompt, and get_prompt_history.

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 such as get_prompt_history or improve_prompt. There is no explanation of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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