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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and 'Creates no files' restates that safety profile. However, since there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned metadata (variables, post-generation steps, notes, file list) adds genuine behavioral value that structured fields do not carry.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, that lists the return contents compactly and closes with the reassuring 'Creates no files'. No sentence is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the return-shape information that a missing output schema would otherwise leave unknown. It stops short of noting failure behavior (e.g. what happens for an unknown template name), which is the only remaining gap.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example ('react-native-mesh-app'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about the name parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource (get a template's metadata) and enumerates the returned fields (variables, post-generation steps, notes, file list), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_package or get_workflow by the resource itself, but it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'Creates no files' hints this is the inspection counterpart to scaffolding tools such as generate_architecture or preview_scaffold, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent must infer its place among the many get_/list_/search_ siblings.

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