Get a block template

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating the output includes block markup, which is not in the annotations. This provides value beyond the structured fields, though it doesn't cover potential errors or authentication requirements.

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, focused sentence with no redundant phrases. It front-loads the action and resource, and the clause about block markup is information-dense. Minor redundancy with the title ('Get') is negligible, but the description 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?

With no output schema, the description partially explains the return value by mentioning block markup. It covers the essential purpose and parameters are fully documented. It lacks details on error conditions or structure of the returned object, but for a simple read operation with read-only annotations, the level is adequate.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 retrieves one block template or template part, including its block markup. It identifies the resource type and distinguishes from list_templates by emphasizing 'one' and the inclusion of markup, making its purpose explicit.

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 implies use for inspecting or editing layout, which hints at a read-then-edit workflow. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_templates or update_template, nor exclusion criteria. The guidance is clear enough for most agents but lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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