template_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating read operation ('lấy') and adds the useful 'approved' filtering trait, but it does not disclose error cases, authorization needs, or other behavioral details beyond what the verb itself suggests.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core meaning is front-loaded after the brief 'F4' label. The only minor issue is that 'F4' is unexplained, though it does not prevent understanding.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is minimally viable: an agent can infer the primary call using 'kind'. However, without semantics for market/customer and without sibling-routing guidance, the agent may not know how to use the optional parameters effectively.

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 description partially clarifies that 'kind' corresponds to the document type ('loại tài liệu'), but it gives no meaning for 'market' or 'customer'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate enough for these two optional parameters.

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 ('lấy' = get) and a specific resource ('file khuôn đã duyệt' = approved template file), scoped to a document type. It distinguishes the tool from generic file siblings by the 'approved template' concept, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 phrase 'cho một loại tài liệu' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when an approved template file for a document type is needed. However, it provides no guidance about when to supply optional market/customer parameters and no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing.

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