gh_run_template

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, and the description adds that it forces a fresh solution and optionally bakes outputs. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like modifying the active document or clamping timeout, nor does it explain what 'declared outputs' refers to.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Immediately states the core action and optional behavior, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's complexity (runs a template, bakes geometry) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main intent but omits important context like input requirements, failure modes, and default behaviors (e.g., default bake).

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%, meaning the tool description adds no parameter information. Though the schema itself includes descriptions, the description fails to compensate for low coverage by explaining key parameters like template_id or bake behavior.

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 action (force a fresh solution) and optional behavior (bake outputs). It distinguishes this tool from generic run tools like 'gh_run' by specifying 'template' context, though it could be more explicit about running a loaded template.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., gh_run, gh_load_template). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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