get_lesson_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but does state 'Access level: read' and describes the conditional behavior of project_id triggering scope_suggestions. For a pure read-only getter this is adequate, though it discloses nothing about output size, caching, or error modes.

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?

Three short, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then access level, then return shape. No filler and the conditionality of scope_suggestions is stated compactly.

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 single-optional-param read-only tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the payload keys and the conditional behavior. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance to sibling template tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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% and the single project_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's '(if project_id given) scope_suggestions' repeats that schema text nearly verbatim rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the canonical `## LL-XXX-NNN` atomic block template plus its field descriptions and usage instructions. An agent can distinguish it from get_rule_template by the 'LL-XXX' namespace, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts the sibling rule/transcription templates.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. It does not say to call this before authoring a lesson, nor when to prefer it over get_rule_template or get_transcription_template. Usage must be inferred purely from the returned payload.

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