expand_template_tool

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

The description adds 'filesystem-native, offline' indicating local-only operation without network dependencies, which is useful. However, it does not disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies the template file in place, what happens if variables are not provided, or if there are side effects like file creation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that conveys the core function and two key attributes (filesystem-native, offline). No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded. It is appropriate in size for a simple tool.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should be more comprehensive. It omits crucial details such as the format for the 'variables' parameter, how 'vault_path' is used, and what the output looks like (e.g., expanded content). The tool has 4 parameters with only one required, yet no guidance on optional ones. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect usage.

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 only 25%, and the tool description does not explain any of the parameters despite the low coverage. The description (outside the schema) provides no additional meaning for 'variables' or 'vault_path', which are partially described in the schema. The context parameter is completely undocumented. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: expanding template variables. It adds specificity with 'filesystem-native, offline' which helps differentiate from sibling tools like render_templater_template_tool that might use a different engine. However, the purpose could be more explicit about the scope (e.g., which template systems it supports).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a template file to exist, nor does it advise on cases where variables are missing or invalid. There is no comparison with sibling tools that might offer similar functionality.

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