Get TSK example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state the concrete behavioral traits that matter here: the payload is raw markdown, includes both frontmatter and body, and exercises every section (i.e., it is a maximal rather than minimal sample). It does not explicitly confirm the call is side-effect free or put no-parameter behavior in words, but 'Return' plus the content description covers the essentials.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and the artifact, then qualifies the format and purpose. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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 enumerated, and the description adds the useful framing that the sample is exhaustive ("exercising every section"). For a zero-parameter getter this is nearly complete; the only gap is that it does not help the agent choose between this and get_tsk_template.

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 (schema coverage 100% trivially), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is missing or needed.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb (Return) with a specific resource (a complete, valid sample task list document) and states the exact form (raw markdown, frontmatter and body). It is clear what comes back, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling get_tsk_template, which is the main ambiguity in this cluster of *_example/*_template tools.

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" implies the intent (consult it to see what a fully-populated TSK document looks like), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of get_tsk_template or get_tsk as the alternatives. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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