Get the PlantUML sequence-skeleton template

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

With no annotations the description carries the load, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: output is raw PlantUML verbatim, it is not markdown, has no frontmatter, is not validate-able, and the packaged data file is read fresh on every call. 'Return'/'Reads' imply read-only but that is never stated outright, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the identity of the resource and followed by the format caveats. Dense but each sentence carries information (shape, output format, freshness); the rulebook §2.9 citation is the only slightly noisy element.

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?

No parameters plus an existing output schema means the description only owes format and lifecycle context, and it supplies both (raw PlantUML verbatim, non-validatable, read fresh each call). Nothing essential is missing, though an explicit neighbor-pointer would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 and there is nothing further for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing argument semantics.

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 gives a precise verb ('Return') and resource ('the packaged PlantUML sequence-skeleton template'), and pins the resource down further as placeholder participants plus mapping comments matching the shape get_uc_sequence_skeleton emits. The 'template vs example' framing lets an agent distinguish it from the many get_*_example and get_uc_plantuml_example siblings without opening a schema.

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?

It relates the template to get_uc_sequence_skeleton's output shape, which is useful context, but it never states when to reach for this tool versus get_uc_plantuml_example, get_uc_template, or get_uc_example. Usage is only implied by the word 'template', so an agent has to infer the selection rule.

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