Get TSK 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 disclose meaningful behavior: the result is raw markdown, it is a read-only style retrieval with no parameters, and the content is deliberately short blind text rather than real task data. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free or static, which is the only remaining 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and result type, with the parenthetical efficiently clarifying the nature of the placeholder content. No filler or redundant restatement of the 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and with zero parameters and no annotations there is little else to cover. The description supplies the content shape and intended use, which is everything an agent needs to select and call it.

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 of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The none-argument nature is implicitly confirmed by the absence of any parameter reference.

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 and resource ("Return a TSK document template") and defines exactly what the payload contains (frontmatter plus every body field, placeholder content, raw markdown). It does not distinguish itself from the close sibling get_tsk_example, so an agent must infer the template-vs-example difference, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Clearly frames the use case: "for use as a starting point when drafting a new task list," which tells the agent when this is the right call versus fetching an existing document. It names no exclusions or explicit alternatives (e.g. get_tsk_example, create_tsk), so it stops short of a 5.

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