get_thing_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral aspects. It describes what is returned but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., if name not found), permissions required, or idempotency. A read operation should clarify these aspects.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. No superfluous information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lacks details on return format structure and error handling. For a get tool, it should clarify if an error occurs when the template is not found or if it returns null. The description covers the essentials but is incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage; the 'name' parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond associating the parameter with the resource. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a well-defined resource 'ThingTemplate', and explicitly lists what is included in the definition (property, service, event signatures, parent template, implemented ThingShapes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling 'list_thing_templates' which lists all 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 description implies usage when you need a full definition of a specific ThingTemplate by name. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons with alternatives like 'list_thing_templates'. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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