Get TXT template

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it says the content is placeholder 'blind text', that all body fields are present, and that the output is raw markdown rather than a rendered document. It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect-free or non-persistent, which a mutation-sensitive agent would want confirmed.

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 that leads with the verb and the deliverable, then qualifies the content and format. The parenthetical "('blind text')" is slightly redundant with the surrounding 'short placeholder' phrasing but is not costly enough to warrant trimming criticism.

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?

The tool is trivially simple — no parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema that already documents the return shape. The description covers what the agent needs before calling: what comes back, in what format, and for what purpose.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the (empty) input contract.

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: returns a TXT document template as raw markdown, and enumerates what it contains (frontmatter plus every body field with placeholder content). It is clear, but it never explicitly separates itself from the adjacent get_txt_example and get_txt_schema siblings, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the nouns alone.

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 trailing clause 'for use as a starting point when drafting a new free-form text document' gives an implied when-to-use context. There is no explicit exclusion (e.g. 'not for reading existing documents — use get_txt') and no mention of when get_txt_example or get_txt_schema would be the better call, so routing is left partly to inference.

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