common-get-item-template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and 'Gets' is consistent with that safety profile. The description adds little beyond the annotation: it does not explain return format, the implications of the 'full' diagnostics flag, or any auth/rate-limit considerations. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, making it easy to parse. It is perhaps too terse to structure any caveats, but it avoids verbosity entirely.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema, so the description could help by summarizing what 'template information' includes (e.g., fields, base templates) or noting the id/path requirement. However, 100% schema coverage already documents the parameters and the read-only annotation covers safety, leaving the description minimally adequate.

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%, and the schema already documents all five parameters, including the id/path mutual exclusivity and the 'full' diagnostics caveat. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Gets') and resource ('template information for a Sitecore item'), making the operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the similar sibling authoring-get-item-template, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as authoring-get-item-template or common-set-item-template. The description offers only the core action with no context, conditions, or exclusions.

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