recommend_template

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by stating that it 'returns ranked recommendations with rationale', which is behavioral context not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core action. Two paragraphs: one for usage and one for rationale. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a two-parameter tool with existing output schema. It explains the input, output (ranked recommendations with rationale), and the problem it solves, linking to the sibling tool convert_document.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (purpose and topN). The tool description does not add further explanation beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Suggest the best built-in template(s) for a described purpose.' It uses the specific verb 'suggest' and resource 'built-in templates', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_all_templates by noting that this tool maps purpose to real template names to avoid conversion failures.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user describes WHAT the document is (e.g. ...) without naming a template.' It also explains why it exists (to prevent AI assistants from guessing non-existent templates) and implicitly indicates not to use when a template name is already known.

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