Get UC 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 reasonably well: 'Return' signals a read-only, side-effect-free operation, and it discloses output format (raw markdown) and the placeholder nature of the content. It omits any note about idempotence or how placeholder text should be treated, but nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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 with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the content guarantee and the intended use. The parenthetical '(blind text)' is the only embellishment and it clarifies an unusual term, so every clause earns its place.

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?

Zero parameters, a 100% covered schema, and an output schema that already defines the return shape. The description adds the one thing the structured fields cannot convey: that the returned content is placeholder material meant as a drafting starting point rather than canonical data.

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. Baseline 4 applies.

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 (Return), resource (UC document template), and the exact scope of the content: frontmatter plus every body field, populated with placeholder blind text, delivered as raw markdown. This lets an agent distinguish it from get_uc (existing document), get_uc_example (filled example), and create_uc (mutation) without opening any 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?

The trailing clause 'for use as a starting point when drafting a new use case' gives clear situational context. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use get_uc_example instead when you want realistic content'), so routing is implied rather than stated.

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