get_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (source code) but does not mention error behavior, permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple get operation this is minimal and leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and contains no unnecessary words. It is concise and communicates the core purpose without 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description adequately notes the return type. However, it omits possible failure modes, prerequisites, or how the source is returned, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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 provides 100% description coverage for the only parameter (template_id), including example values, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema supplies.

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 action ('Carrega' / loads) and a clear resource ('código-fonte React 19 completo... de um componente visual'), which identifies the tool as returning source code for a template. It implicitly differentiates from list_templates by focusing on source retrieval, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 tool name and description imply usage for fetching a specific template's source code, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_templates or search_vault. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving usage to inference.

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