What the rules have to say:
1. DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do. (This may occasion GM calls for die-rolled resolution.)
3. The DM narrates the results.
So the structure laid out for you by the system would say "no, don't prompt them for checks. Sit back and listen to what they're narrating their characters doing, decide whether a check might be implicated, and issue it then."
This is a great system for players and GMs who have mastered evocative and informative narration and are expert listeners. This is not, I'm sad to say, every group.
What I have to say:
I assume when running a game that (a) I'm not very good at conveying my mind's-eye view of the fiction in my brain via language, and (b) my players only internalize some portion of what I'm saying anyway. (Ambient noise, catching up on spell-slot bookkeeping, poor sequencing of ideas in my presentation, that cute boy at the next table, whatever.)
With that ^^ said, I often end a moment of narration with a little summary which includes some choices for how to proceed. "You're at the magically-locked portal. You-all found some clues making you think that the Amulet of Guffin is on the other side. You could be looking for mechanisms, poring through the rubble, scouting the surroundings, or any number of other things. For the next few minutes or so what would you be doing?" Then I go around the table to everyone.
So I'm not exactly saying go as far as "here's a magically-locked door, Wizwiz please make an Arcana check," which kinda locks the players out. But you can prod things in that direction with "Sneaky McStabbins, while you were looking for traps you found a spot that seemed to make your fingers tingle... but you don't see anything there. Some magical mystery beyond your skill, perhaps."