Get FEAT template

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the exact return shape (raw markdown, frontmatter plus all body fields) and that the content is placeholder 'blind text' rather than real data. It never explicitly states this is a non-mutating read with no side effects, which is the only notable gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the verb and resource. The parenthetical gloss on 'blind text' is slightly indulgent but the sentence remains efficient overall.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema already defining the return structure, the description is essentially complete: it covers what is returned, in what format, and for what purpose. Only the missing sibling differentiation keeps it from being fully airtight.

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 schema baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing parameter-level for the description to clarify.

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 FEAT document template') and details the payload (frontmatter plus every body field, placeholder content, raw markdown). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling get_feat_example, leaving the template-vs-example boundary implicit.

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?

'for use as a starting point when drafting a new feature' gives a clear context for use, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or why an agent would pick this over get_feat_example or get_feat. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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