Get SOP example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape (raw markdown, frontmatter plus body, complete and valid) and that it is static sample content. Read-only, non-destructive behavior is clearly inferable, though it does not mention any auth or rate-limit characteristics.

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 with zero filler; the essential scope (sample, markdown, frontmatter+body, every section) is packed in without redundancy.

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 described, yet the description still characterizes the payload usefully. For a zero-parameter static fetcher with an output schema, the definition is essentially complete; only the template-vs-example routing nuance is absent.

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 baseline the schema has nothing to document and the description correctly adds no parameter detail. Nothing is missing on this dimension.

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 (a complete, valid sample SOP document) plus its distinguishing trait: it is a filled-in example exercising every section, not the real document. This implicitly separates it from get_sop and get_sop_template, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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" gives an implied context for use, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_sop_template or get_sop, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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