get_spec_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only fetch of a fixed constant but never states that it is read-only, non-destructive, or whether the template is static or workspace-dependent; nothing about the return shape is given.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the returned artifact. It is efficiently stated, though arguably too terse to be fully self-sufficient.

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?

With no output schema covering the return value, the description should describe what the returned template looks like or how it is consumed, and it does not. For a zero-param, zero-annotation tool on a shared template concept, an agent is left guessing at format and 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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. No parameter meaning is missing.

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 ("Returns") and a clearly named resource (the SPEC_KIT_TEMPLATE), so an agent can tell this apart from list_specs/read_spec at a glance. It adds the workspace scope (alfred-egit), but does not explicitly contrast itself against the sibling 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus read_spec or generate_spec, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this fetches a static template rather than a user spec.

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