Get GOL template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return format (raw markdown), the content shape (frontmatter + every body field, all populated), and the placeholder nature of the content. It does not mention safety/permissions or that repeated calls yield identical output, but for a read-only template fetch those are minor omissions.

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 sentence with the outcome front-loaded and the qualifying details (format, placeholder content, intended use) trailing. No redundancy or filler; every clause carries information.

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 template retrieval tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is returned, in what format, and why it would be called. Return-value details are already backed by the output schema.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies there is nothing to configure by describing a static template with no 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 (Return) and resource (GOL document template) plus the exact payload: frontmatter and every body field filled with placeholder 'blind text'. The phrase 'template ... populated with placeholder content' distinguishes it functionally from the sibling get_gol_example (filled real content) and get_gol (an existing goal) without ambiguity.

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 names the use case explicitly: 'for use as a starting point when drafting a new goal'. That is a clear trigger condition, but it does not name the alternatives it should be chosen over (get_gol_example, get_gol) or state exclusions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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