Get REQ template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape and nature of the output: raw markdown containing frontmatter plus every body field, populated with placeholder content. It implies a read-only, non-mutating operation (Return), though it never explicitly confirms absence of side effects or auth needs, leaving a small 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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the useful clarification about placeholder ('blind text') content embedded compactly. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 read-only template tool with an output schema present, the description covers what is returned, in what format (raw markdown), and the intended use. An agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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 baseline is 4. There are no arguments to explain and the description correctly says nothing misleading about 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?

Specific verb (Return) plus a precise resource (a REQ document template) and an explicit statement of what the content is (frontmatter + every body field with placeholder text). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling get_req_example and get_req without opening either.

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?

States the use case clearly: 'for use as a starting point when drafting a new requirement,' which tells the agent when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly name the alternative (get_req_example) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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