get_template_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool returns (default font/size, named styles, etc.) but does not state whether it is a read-only operation, if it requires an open document, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the name and sibling tools, but explicit confirmation would improve transparency.

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 two sentences: the first lists what the tool returns, and the second specifies its usage context. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but confirmed via context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the key return components and usage context. However, it lacks guidance on the document_handle parameter, which is a minor gap in completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter 'document_handle' with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not explain what this parameter is or how to use it, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from sibling tools. This is a significant gap for a tool that requires a document reference.

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 tool returns a 'template style map' including default font/size, named paragraph styles, table styles, and page margins. It also explicitly mentions its use case: 'Use before filling to match formatting.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_styles or get_paragraph_format.

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 explicitly advises 'Use before filling to match formatting,' which tells the agent when to invoke this tool. While it does not detail when not to use it or name alternatives, the context and sibling tools imply it is a preparatory step for fill operations.

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