Get Issue Template

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the annotation by pointing out that the prefilled issue body lives in `fieldTemplates.description` rather than the template's own `description` field. This prevents a likely misinterpretation of the response structure.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the id-lookup step is immediately given, and the critical field-location caveat is stated at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, readOnlyHint, and a clear id-discoverability pointer, the description is complete. It also resolves the likely confusion around `fieldTemplates.description`, which is exactly the kind of contextual detail an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents `template_id` and states it comes from `issue_templates_get_all`. The description's mention of finding the id via that tool adds no new parameter semantics; it reinforces, but does not expand upon, the schema. 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 the specific action ('Get a single Yandex Tracker issue template'), the resource, and the lookup key ('by its id'). It also clarifies the distinction from the listing tool by naming `issue_templates_get_all` for id discovery. This is unambiguous and well differentiated from 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 usage context: use this tool to fetch a single template by id, and use `issue_templates_get_all` to find the id. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or mention the equally similar `comment_template_get` sibling, so it stops short of a full 5.

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