generate_document_skeleton

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at what the output contains (metadata substituted into a template structure) but never states the return format (markdown text? JSON?), whether anything is persisted to disk versus returned in-memory, or whether the result must then be passed to save_document. For a generation tool sitting next to save_document, that distinction matters and is left unstated.

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 that front-loads the action and the source template, with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical field list is slightly padded with items that are not parameters.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at least characterize the returned artifact and its relationship to save_document. It conveys the general shape of the output but not the format or the post-generation step, leaving a real gap for an agent wiring a documentation workflow.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning: it names metadata concepts ('title, overview, prerequisites, author, etc.') that are not actual parameters, while the real optional inputs (custom_sections, project_description) are not elaborated on, so it neither compensates nor misleads significantly.

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+resource ('Generate a tailored document skeleton') and anchors it to a named source (The Good Docs Project template), which clearly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_template or list_templates. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from get_template or save_document, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the step after selecting a template_id, but the description never states when to call this instead of get_template or save_document, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must a template be fetched first?). No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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