get_codebase_analysis_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the detail about 12 sections gives some expectation of the return. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or whether the template is static or dynamically generated. This is acceptable for a simple getter but not rich.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's output (a comprehensive template with 12 standard sections) and is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. No additional context is needed.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 4 applies for seamlessly handling the no-parameter case.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and names the resource 'comprehensive codebase analysis markdown template', with a concrete detail (12 sections total). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling template tools for PRDs or bug analysis and from the prompt-generation 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?

The description states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over the sibling generate_codebase_analysis_prompt or other template getters. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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