get_template

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description confirms it is a read operation, which is consistent and adds no contradiction. However, it adds no extra behavior context (e.g., behavior on missing template, response format) beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it instantly scannable 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?

For a single-read operation with one parameter fully documented in the schema and an output schema present, the description is adequate. It could mention when to use this over list_templates, but that falls under usage guidelines. The minimal description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema description covers 100% of the only parameter, 'name', including format and length. The description adds nothing beyond 'by name' which is already implied. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('single template'), and a discriminator ('by name'). It easily distinguishes from siblings like list_templates (list all) and save_template/delete_template (write operations). No ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention list_templates for bulk listing or render_template for processing, nor any conditions that would select one over the other. The usage is only implicitly obvious from the name.

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