Get template details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destrictive behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying what kinds of details are returned and noting that the job definition is included only optionally. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence states scope and then lists the return categories with a concrete hardware example. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does a reasonably complete job for the main detail fields. However, it omits the behavior of include_readme and doesn't clarify whether variant is meant to narrow a template or can be fetched independently. Those gaps matter for an agent trying to invoke this tool 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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the schema documents template and variant but leaves include_readme and include_job_definition undocumented. The description partially compensates by mapping 'optionally the job definition' to include_job_definition, but it never mentions include_readme or explains how template and variant relate.

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 opens with 'Details of one template or variant,' which identifies both the resource and the scope, then enumerates the exact detail categories returned: VRAM, hardware notes, web endpoint, variants, and optionally the job definition. This clearly separates it from list_templates and deployment-focused siblings.

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 clear context: use this tool when you need details about a single template or variant, not for balances, GPU listings, or deployments. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or listing when-not-to-use cases, so it misses a full 5.

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