Despite the remarkable successes of large language models (LLMs), the underlying Transformer architecture has inherent limitations in handling complex reasoning tasks. Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a practical workaround, but most CoT-based methods rely on a single, generic prompt such as "think step by step", with no task-specific adaptation. These approaches expect the model to discover an effective reasoning path on its own, forcing it to search through a vast prompt space. In contrast, several studies have explored task-specific prompt designs to boost performance. However, these designs are typically developed through trial and error, lacking theoretical grounding. As a result, prompt engineering remains largely ad hoc and unguided. In this paper, we provide a theoretical framework that explains why some prompts succeed while others fail. We show that prompts function as selectors, extracting task-relevant information from the model's full hidden state during CoT reasoning. Each prompt defines a unique trajectory through the answer space, and the choice of trajectory is crucial for task performance and future navigation within the space. We analyze the complexity of finding optimal prompts and characterize the size of the prompt space for a given task. Our theory reveals principles behind effective prompt design and shows that naive CoT-using self-guided prompts like "think step by step"-can severely hinder performance. Through experiments, we show that optimal prompt search can lead to more than a 50% improvement on reasoning tasks, providing a theoretical foundation for prompt engineering.