ghl_get_email_builder_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic get action and provides no context about response format, error handling, permissions, or side effects. This is a very thin description for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence, fully front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple get-by-ID operation.

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 simple retrieval, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what is returned, common failure modes, or any related endpoints, but given the low complexity, the absence of such detail is not severely penalized. It is still a complete enough description for basic 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 already defines templateId with a description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is exactly the baseline 3 scenario where 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 'Get a single email builder template by ID' clearly states a specific action (get) on a specific resource (email builder template) with a clear scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from the sibling ghl_get_email_builder_templates which presumably retrieves multiple templates.

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 'by ID' phrase implies this tool is intended when a specific template ID is known, which is a minimal usage hint. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like the plural list endpoint, so guidance is only implied.

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