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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it adds nothing beyond the tool's name. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the ID is not found, response format, or authorization requirements. The word 'get' implies retrieval, but no concrete behavior is disclosed.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description lacks any mention of return values or error conditions. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the response contains (e.g., the full prompt object) or how missing IDs are handled. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent.

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 already describes the only parameter 'id' as an integer 'Prompt ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'by ID', so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a prompt by ID' clearly states the specific action (get), resource (prompt), and the required identifier (by ID). This differentiates it from sibling tools like prompts_list (which retrieves multiple prompts) and prompts_create/update/delete (which mutate data).

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that you need the ID, but there is no guidance on how to obtain the ID (e.g., via prompts_list) or any exclusions. For a tool with many siblings, this is insufficient.

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