panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_templates_slug

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful operational context beyond annotations by specifying the required scope 'docker:read' and the exact HTTP method/path. It does not describe error cases or return shape, but the safety profile is well covered.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the core purpose first. The structured lines for HTTP method, category, required scopes, and read-only status are all scannable and leave no filler.

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 simple single-parameter GET operation with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it gives the endpoint, scope, and safety characteristics. It does not explain what the response contains or how to find a valid slug, but the sibling list tool and the path parameter provide enough context 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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, 'slug', is already described as a path parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about what a slug is, what format it should take, or how to discover valid slugs, so it provides no value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get app template', and the HTTP endpoint makes the target explicit. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list tool or the deploy tool, but the singular 'slug' path parameter makes its scope reasonably clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the endpoint '/v1/docker/templates/:slug': this tool retrieves a single Docker app template by slug. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this versus listing all templates or deploying a template, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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