Get SYSRS template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the returned content is deliberately placeholder ("blind text") rather than real requirement text, that every field is present, and that the output is raw markdown. The main omission is any note on permissions or whether the template reflects the current document schema version.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifying detail in a parenthetical clause. It is slightly overloaded with nested em-dash material, but no sentence is wasted.

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 explanation is not required, and there are no parameters to document. What remains is fully covered: what the template contains, that it is placeholder text, and its intended use. Only the relationship to the example/get variants 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies the tool is argument-free by describing a single unconditional return.

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 specific resource ("a SYSRS document template") with the exact composition spelled out: frontmatter, every body field, blind-text placeholders, raw markdown. This is clearly distinguishable from create_sysrs (writes), get_sysrs (fetches a real artifact), and get_sysrs_example (which would hold real-world content rather than placeholders).

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 starting point when drafting a new System Requirements Specification" gives a genuine use context, but the sibling set contains get_sysrs_example and get_sysrs, and the description never states when to pick the template over those. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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