Get RSK example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it is a read-only retrieval returning raw markdown with frontmatter and body, complete and valid, covering every section. It does not discuss auth, caching, or whether the sample is static, but for a zero-arg example fetch that is a minor 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 information-dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, with the purpose clause last. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. The description covers what the example contains and why to fetch it, though it stops short of routing between the sibling example/template/get tools.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema leaves nothing to disambiguate.

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), resource (sample risk document), format (raw markdown), and scope (frontmatter and body, every section). The 'learning example' framing distinguishes it from get_rsk (real document) and get_rsk_template (blank skeleton) without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 learning example' hints at the intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., get_rsk_template for scaffolding, get_rsk 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.