Templates Get Template Definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'returns a structured summary,' which is vague and somewhat inconsistent with the earlier claim of returning the 'full definition.' It does not clarify permissions, errors, or what happens when the template_id is invalid.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. However, the second sentence repeats the idea of returning the template definition and uses the vague phrase 'structured summary,' so it does not fully earn its place as distinct, valuable information.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema available, the core invocation details are sufficient and the return format can be inferred from the schema. However, the ambiguity between 'full definition' and 'structured summary,' plus the lack of distinction from templates_get_template, leaves the agent with incomplete context for confident tool selection.

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 100%, so the single parameter template_id is already fully documented with its type and prefix convention. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('full definition of a Mitti template'), enumerating contents such as questions, sections, and scoring rules. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool templates_get_template, which may look very similar to an agent.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The near-identical sibling templates_get_template is not mentioned or contrasted, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool fits the need. The only usage signal is the implied 'full definition' wording, which is not explicit enough.

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