get_message_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. It discloses the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and the raw-vs-compact output option, but it does not state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens when the template is not found, or any rate-limit/error behavior. For a GET-style tool this is a moderate gap.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the optional parameters and auth requirement. It is efficient and free of filler, though the parenthetical list of optional parameters is slightly dense.

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 lookup tool with a fully documented schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain the return format beyond 'compact summary' vs 'raw hh.ru JSON', nor does it clarify error cases or when the optional parameters are required. This leaves some gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 all five parameters. The description adds a little context by grouping topic_id with existing applications and resume_id/vacancy_id with invite templates, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('negotiation message template'), and the lookup key ('by id'), with optional context parameters. It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like get_application_messages or list_mail_templates, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 context by listing optional parameters (topic_id, resume_id, vacancy_id) and the auth requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_mail_templates or get_application_messages. The optional parameter hints provide some guidance, but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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