get_prd_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly communicates a read-only 'Fetch' operation (implying no side effects) and discloses the output format (markdown) and content scope (all standard sections, 14 total). This is sufficient behavioral context for a simple template retrieval tool.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every element adds value: 'comprehensive', 'markdown template', 'all standard sections (14 sections total)'. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it specifies the resource (PRD template), the format (markdown), and the scope (14 sections). It could optionally mention return type or safety, but these are either implied or available after invocation. The description fully covers the tool's 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (as none exist) but mentions content characteristics ('14 sections total'), which is appropriate given there is nothing else to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('Product Requirements Document markdown template'), and explicitly mentions '14 sections total' to define scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_codebase_analysis_template and get_bug_analysis_template by focusing specifically on PRD templates.

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 implies usage: users should call this tool when they need a PRD markdown template. The resource is explicitly identified, providing clear context without naming alternatives. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the distinction from sibling tools is implicit through the PRD-specific wording.

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