get_code_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool requires an API key (pro feature) and emphasizes template quality ('battle-tested', 'proper error handling'), but it does not specify what happens without an API key, response format, error behavior, or rate limits beyond the free-user note about recommendations, leaving gaps.

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 and front-loads the core purpose. The second sentence adds quality and access context, though the free-user note about recommendations is somewhat tangential for a template tool. Still, each sentence earns its place.

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 getter tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case, language options, and access restriction. It does not describe return format or error handling, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of a sibling for listing models reduce the need for more 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 both parameters ('model' and 'language'), so the schema already explains their meaning. The description mentions 'TypeScript & Python', matching the language enum, but adds no additional semantic detail 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get ArchitectGBT's production-tested code templates for AI model integration' with specific languages (TypeScript & Python). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('code templates'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_ai_recommendation' and 'list_models' by focusing on templates rather than recommendations or model lists.

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 clear usage context by noting it's a 'Pro feature - requires API key' and mentions free-user limits, implying this tool is intended for paying users. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context makes it clear that this tool is for obtaining code templates, while siblings serve different purposes.

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