Get template params + example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or discuss authorization or rate limits. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it does. It mentions both 'parameters' and 'concrete example,' covering expected return content. However, it could be slightly more explicit about what 'concrete example' means (e.g., usage demo) to fully compensate for the lack of output schema.

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% coverage with a description for the 'name' parameter ('Template name, e.g. 'hero'.'). The tool description adds context that this is 'for one section template,' which clarifies the parameter's role. However, no further detail is given about the parameter's format or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get the parameters and a concrete example for one section template,' which specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('parameters and a concrete example'), and the scope ('one section template'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_templates' (which lists all templates) by focusing on a single template's details.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what the tool does not do (e.g., it does not list all templates) or when to prefer sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'get_design_playbook'. An explicit usage note would help the agent select appropriately.

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