get_template_schema

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the read-like action implied by 'Get.' With no annotations available, the description does not clarify what happens for missing templates, return format specifics, or any side effects. It only states what is included, not behavior or guarantees.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose and adds one useful qualifier. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It hints at return content (variables with defaults) but does not fully specify the metadata structure or error behavior. The lack of an output schema places more burden on the description, yet it covers the core function cleanly.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' with description 'Template name.' The description adds minimal extra meaning, only reinforcing that the template is identified by name. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no additional parameter semantics are offered.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('template metadata') with a clarifying detail ('including available variables with defaults'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_component_schema and list_templates, which focus on components or merely listing 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions like 'when you need variable details' or exclude cases like 'do not use for component schemas.' Usage context is only implied by the name, not stated.

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