Get label template args

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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing conversion limitations: images, ArUco markers, paths, and groups cannot be converted and produce BAD_INPUT. It also explains that notes reports additional dropped items, which is useful lossy-conversion behavior.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the return purpose and followed by the key conversion caveats. No padding or redundant restatement.

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?

Complete for this tool: annotations cover the safety profile, an output schema exists, and the description supplies the source alternatives, conversion restrictions, and notes behavior needed to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the path+printer pairing and conversion behavior, but the schema already documents the individual parameters and their constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: return render_label arguments for editing, not render them. It clearly identifies the two sources (saved template by name or NiimBlue .json export converted to objects and rows), which distinguishes it from render_label.

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 makes the use case clear: obtain editable render_label args from either a saved template or an exported label file. It does not explicitly state when to avoid render_label or list_templates, but the edit-oriented framing provides clear context.

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