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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the get-by-ID semantics and adds an irrelevant version note, without explaining what include_content=false returns, the role of user_uuid, authentication requirements, or side effects. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, which is good. However, the second line about 'v0.4.0 Unified Prompt Templates feature' is version metadata that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, adding noise instead of useful content.

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?

This is a simple 3-parameter read tool and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. Still, the definition leaves user_uuid's role unexplained, provides no usage context relative to siblings, and includes an irrelevant version note. It is adequate for a basic call but not complete.

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 description's 'by ID' maps to template_id, but the schema already documents that parameter. The schema documents include_content, while user_uuid has no description; the description neither clarifies user_uuid's purpose nor explains how include_content=false changes the response. With only 67% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the gap and does not.

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 states 'Get a specific prompt template by ID,' providing a clear verb, resource, and scope. The 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from list_prompt_templates, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from export_prompt_template or other siblings that may also target a specific template.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_prompt_templates, export_prompt_template, import_template_from_url, or other siblings. The only extra context is a version tag ('v0.4.0 Unified Prompt Templates feature'), which does not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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