Get standard change request template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful error behavior (MissingParameterError if template_sys_id missing, ParameterError on invalid params/deserialization) and notes the return is a parsed Pydantic model. That is meaningful added context, but it discloses nothing about pagination or filtering behavior despite the many query-like params.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by cleanly structured docstring sections for param, return, and raises. The content is appropriately sized and free of filler, though the docstring formatting is somewhat boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations gaps to fill, but 22 undocumented parameters and only one described, the definition is materially incomplete for correct invocation. An agent cannot know what most parameters do or how they interact with this single-resource get.

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% across 22 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It documents only template_sys_id (and its error if omitted); the other 21 params (state, change_type, text_search, sysparm_query, sysparm_limit, cmdb_ci_sys_ids, etc.) are left entirely unexplained. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: 'Retrieve details of a standard change request template.' Singular 'template' distinguishes it implicitly from the plural list sibling (get_standard_change_request_templates), and from get_standard_change_request_model. However, it does not explicitly name or route against those siblings, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the very similar get_standard_change_request_templates or get_standard_change_request_model siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only hint is the singular resource name.

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