get_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read operation (via 'Get') implying no side effects, but it does not explicitly state safety, error behavior, or what constitutes 'details'. It adds the valid ID list, which is useful, but leaves out any mention of invalid-ID handling or return format. 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 description is a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the purpose ('Get details for one AETumi 3D website template') and appends the valid IDs without any redundant phrasing. Every word 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 one-parameter get tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe what 'details' includes (e.g., name, price, features), nor does it address potential errors or the response structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent must infer what it will receive. The list of valid IDs mitigates some uncertainty, but the vague 'details' leaves a meaningful 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?

The schema already documents the id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete valid values (aerae, aerae-luxe, aesport, aebiker, avelor), going beyond the schema's generic example. This extra specificity helps the agent select a correct id without needing an enum or additional lookup.

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 action (Get), the resource (details for one AETumi 3D website template), and the selection mechanism (by id). It even enumerates the valid IDs, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool operates on. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_templates (which lists all) and get_threejs_recipe (which targets recipes, not 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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a single template's details but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. It does not state, for example, that list_templates should be used to discover available templates before calling get_template, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. The valid-ID list is helpful context but does not serve as usage guidance.

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