Get SYSRS example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return is raw markdown including frontmatter and body, that the sample is complete and valid, and that it exercises every section. It is implicitly a no-side-effect read, though it never states read-only status or that it takes no inputs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states action, format, content, and purpose with no filler. Every clause 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-value structure need not be restated, and the description covers the key facts an agent needs (sample document, markdown format, all sections exercised). The only shortfall is the missing contrast with the template/get siblings.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. The description correctly implies a no-argument fetch and adds no spurious parameter claims.

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) + resource (a complete sample SYSRS document) plus the output format (raw markdown with frontmatter and body). It never names the obvious alternative get_sysrs_template, so the example-vs-template distinction is only implied by 'exercising every section'.

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 phrase 'for use as a learning example' gives implied usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to siblings like get_sysrs_template or get_sysrs. An agent must infer the difference between an example and a template on its own.

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