get_ellis_ui_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool fetches and returns content, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, caching, or side effects. For a simple read operation, this is insufficiently transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action with examples, then stating the return value. There is no redundant information; every sentence earns its place. This is highly concise for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description must describe the return format. It states it returns both design.md guidelines and index.html template, but does not specify the structure (e.g., JSON keys, raw text). This leaves ambiguity for an AI agent. For a simple tool with one parameter, it is partially complete but lacking in return structure detail.

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% for the single parameter 'design_name', with examples in both schema and description. The description adds examples consistent with the schema but does not provide deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. 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?

The description clearly states the tool fetches HTML structure and CSS logic for a specific Ellis UI design, with examples of design names like 'backup_dossier'. It also distinguishes itself by specifying the return of both design.md and index.html, differentiating it from siblings like 'get_component' or 'list_ellis_ui_designs'.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_reference' or 'get_component'. It only states what it does without context about prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or sibling relationships. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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