sym_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the returned content: complete director prompt with specific components, reference image URL, and sample video. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only retrieval or describe side effects, but the wording strongly implies fetching a template rather than modifying anything.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and its key contents, and the second sentence states the intended usage, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations to fill gaps, and the description only partially specifies the return value. It omits parameter semantics, especially inspirationItemId, and does not explain how this tool relates to sym_templates, leaving the agent without enough context to call it reliably in all cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not clearly define templateId or inspirationItemId. templateId is weakly inferable from the word 'template', but inspirationItemId is entirely unexplained and no guidance is given on how it affects the returned template.

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 identifies a single template resource containing a director prompt, reference image URL, and sample video, and states its intended use for structuring a prompt. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool sym_templates, so the distinction between listing templates and fetching one is only implied.

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 a clear usage instruction: 'Use it as the structure of your own prompt.' This implies when an agent needs a reusable template, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to sym_templates for browsing templates.

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