Get PRB example

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

With no annotations the description carries the burden, and it discloses the output shape (raw markdown, frontmatter plus body, exercising every section) and implies a safe, side-effect-free read via 'Return'. It could be more explicit that this is a read-only, non-mutating retrieval, but for a zero-parameter tool the behavioral profile is largely covered.

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 states the return content, format, and intended use with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 return values need not be spelled out, and the description still summarizes them. For a simple no-arg read tool this is complete, though the sibling relationship to get_prb_template is left unaddressed.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading or missing parameter guidance is present.

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 (complete, valid sample problem statement document as raw markdown with frontmatter and body). It conveys the artifact well, but does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_prb_template or get_prb, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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 trailing clause 'for use as a learning example' implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. get_prb_template for scaffolding, get_prb for real data). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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