New problem template

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds that the tool returns an empty object plus a field-by-field schema description, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether the template is validated or whether it has network dependencies. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate 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?

Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, the return content, and the usage context with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word adds value.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned, why an agent would call it, and when it should be used. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to clarify. Per baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate since the description correctly focuses on return value and usage rather than inventing parameter details.

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 clear verb ('Return') and identifies the exact resource ('empty Repovive problem object') plus the schema field-by-field description. It also distinguishes this template tool from generator-based authoring, which separates it from siblings like generate_problem.

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 explicitly says 'Start here when authoring a problem by hand rather than from a generator,' providing both a positive usage condition and an exclusion. This is direct, actionable guidance for when to choose this tool over the generator-based alternatives.

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