AaaSagent Templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well by disclosing that license restrictions change the response: free/MIT templates return full text, while restricted ones return metadata plus a repo link. It does not cover error behavior for invalid paths, but the key conditional behavior is clearly stated.

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 three tightly written sentences with the core action first, usage context second, and license-dependent return behavior third. Every sentence adds useful 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 simple one-parameter fetch tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives enough context to call it correctly and explains the two possible return modes. No critical missing information prevents proper invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single path parameter with an example and its origin in list_templates. The description reinforces that the path comes from list_templates but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: fetch one template by path. It also distinguishes this from list_templates by emphasizing 'one template' and noting that the path comes from list_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?

It explicitly says to use this after list_templates when the user wants to apply, compare, or quote a specific template. This names the sibling tool and the condition that selects this tool over listing.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well by declaring 'Read-only, no authentication required' and enumerating the return fields (name, path, license status free/restricted). It stops short of describing result ordering or whether limit paginates beyond a simple cap, which an agent would want to know before calling with a large limit.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return shape and safety profile. No redundant restatement of the tool name and no filler; every clause adds 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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema it covers purpose, filter triggers, return fields, and safety/auth prerequisites. The remaining gap is listing behavior at scale — whether results are sorted or capped beyond the default limit — which is minor but non-zero.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the default of 20 for limit. The description adds only marginal value by restating department and keyword filtering and does not clarify matching semantics (e.g. whether keyword searches name, description, or tags), so the baseline 3 is 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 ('List open-source agent templates') and immediately clarifies the scope: open-source, reusable prompt/workflow/job templates. There are no siblings to differentiate from, and the description also names the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces.

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?

Explicitly gives trigger conditions — the user asking for a reusable prompt/workflow/job template, or wanting results filtered by department or keyword. There are no alternative tools to route against, so no exclusions are possible; the only gap is the absence of any guidance on when this tool is *not* appropriate.

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