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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses that the result includes both the template content and a rulesRevision value, and that for tasks the returned template is conditional on the task's work type. It does not describe failure behavior when taskType is omitted, but the conditional dependency disclosure is the valuable part.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core purpose (what is returned) is front-loaded before the task-conditional caveat. The first sentence is somewhat run-on thanks to stacked parentheticals ("(content)", "(rulesRevision)"), which slightly hinders scanning.

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 only two enum-documented parameters, full annotation coverage, and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return payload (template content plus rulesRevision) and flagging the one conditional branch (task + work type). Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 100%: both parameters have enum-constrained, documented fields, including "required when entity is \"task\"" for taskType. The description only adds one small semantic hint – that a task's template depends on its work type – and offers no help choosing among the 17 taskType values or the entity values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a concrete verb ("Returns") and names the exact resources: workspace conventions, the description template for a new feature/task/bug, and the template revision (rulesRevision). It clearly counteracts the misleading tool name by establishing this as a read of creation rules rather than a creation action. It stops short of explicitly linking the tool to the sibling create operations (feature_create, task_create, bug_create), which would have made it a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied through phrases like "for a new feature, task or bug" and "the template revision that creation requests carry" – an agent can infer this is a pre-creation lookup, but the description never says "call this before creating" or names the create tools it precedes. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, though no sibling appears to duplicate this capability.

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