authoring-get-item-template

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest. It discloses what is returned (sections and field definitions with name, type, source), a non-obvious cross-tool contract (itemTemplateSectionId on read maps to templateSectionId on write), and the exactly-one-of constraint on templateId/path. That is well beyond annotation coverage.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying a distinct load: purpose, usage routing, ID mapping contract, and parameter constraint. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no sentence is redundant with the schema.

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 read-only, 3-parameter template fetch with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: when to call it, what comes back, how the returned IDs are consumed downstream, and the templateId/path exclusivity rule. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nevertheless adds the cross-field constraint 'supply exactly one of templateId or path' that the schema only hints at in individual property descriptions. It does not add format details beyond the schema, but the either-or rule is genuinely useful semantic content.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reads') and resource ('Sitecore data template'), plus the transport ('Authoring and Management API') and the concrete payload (sections and field definitions). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like authoring-get-item or common-get-item-template without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names two prerequisite scenarios: call before authoring-create-item to learn accepted fields, and before authoring-update-item-template to retrieve section/field IDs. This is exactly the 'when to use' routing an agent needs, with named alternatives rather than vague context.

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