Get DEC template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does a fair job: it specifies the output is raw markdown, contains both frontmatter and all body fields, and that the body is filler ('blind text') rather than real content. It omits stating that the call is side-effect free and static, but nothing here misleads.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and payload, and the 'blind text' parenthetical clarifies the placeholder nature without padding. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't spell out the return structure, and it doesn't have to (no params either). What it does provide — content shape and intended use — is enough for an agent to call it correctly; only the sibling differentiation is 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?

Zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey and nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 ('Return a DEC document template') and details exactly what the payload contains: frontmatter plus every body field with placeholder text, as raw markdown. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling get_dec_example, but the purpose itself is 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?

It gives a clear intended context ('for use as a starting point when drafting a new decision'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never names alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer the template-vs-example-vs-get_dec distinction from the naming alone.

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