get_pr_review_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must convey the operation's nature. It fails to explicitly state this is a non-destructive read, though 'return' is a safe verb. The description is accurate but doesn't go far in revealing behavior beyond the function name.

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?

A single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without wasted words. The intended characteristic ('token-efficient') is implicit and effective.

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?

For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this description is largely sufficient. The main gaps are the lack of detail about the commitHash parameter and absence of explicit non-destructive language, but these are minor for a tool of this complexity.

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 description gives no explanation of the commitHash parameter. While an optional commitHash might reasonably be inferred to be a Git commit hash, the format, purpose (likely to fetch the template at that commit), and impact are left entirely to the agent. More guidance would be valuable.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's function: returning the local Angular PR review template. Although it doesn't mention how it differs from sibling tools, the verb 'return' and the specific resource (Angular PR review template) make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this is for users needing the review template, and the phrase 'used to keep review rules consistent' gives some context, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the siblings. The description labels the template as a 'local' resource, which hints at a distinguishing factor, but it doesn't spell out when an agent should choose this tool over the others.

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