Get QA template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format (raw markdown), that all fields are present, and that content is placeholder blind text -- useful non-obvious details. But it says nothing about whether the template is static, whether it reads any source, or its safety/read-only nature.

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?

Single dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and the output format and placeholder nature all earned. No filler.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values structurally. It states the format and placeholder nature, which is enough to call correctly; only the static/read-only nature is left unstated.

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 parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description appropriately focuses on the return payload instead. Nothing further to document.

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 (QA document template) and precisely describes what content is returned: frontmatter, every body field, and placeholder blind-text content, as raw markdown. Draws a clear line against get_qa (an existing document) and get_qa_example (an example) among many sibling template tools.

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?

Explicitly states the use case -- as a starting point when drafting a new QA document -- which disambiguates it from get_qa and get_qa_example. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, though the sibling set makes the intent fairly clear.

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