get_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to state safety. It adds useful behavioral context about the mode affecting response size, which goes beyond the schema by framing it as size control. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, a 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description is adequately complete. It explains the core purpose and the mode parameter's effect. No output schema exists, but the description's reference to 'complete workflow' provides a minimal sense of return content.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully described in the schema. The description only restates the mode options ('minimal', 'nodes+connections', 'complete workflow') without adding new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Get template by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_node and search_templates. It also mentions the mode parameter that affects response detail, making the tool's scope even clearer.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you have a template ID) and explains how mode controls response size. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate it from search tools.

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