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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the return is a single-file template with rules, the agent must author the content itself, and there is a mandatory validation step via check_agent.

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?

Front-loaded with the usage condition and examples, then the return value, then the follow-up sequence. The parenthetical example list is somewhat long but each item clarifies scope rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains what comes back (a single-file template plus its rules) and how it should be used downstream, which is exactly what an agent needs for a zero-parameter, read-only fetch.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax to document and the description correctly spends no words on inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the official single-file RAPP agent template and its rules') and frames the trigger scenarios (idea, repetitive task, process description, meeting transcript) that separate it from siblings like find_agents or get_agent_code.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers with concrete examples, plus an explicit workflow: fill in the template yourself, then call check_agent before showing it, then call use_agent_here. Names the alternative tools and the ordering, leaving nothing to inference.

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