get_template

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

The description discloses that no authentication is required, which is an important behavioral trait. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., invalid botid), rate limits, or that the tool is read-only. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and return contents, followed by the critical auth trait. No unnecessary words.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure and auth requirement. It could mention error handling or that the ID must be valid, but overall it is fairly complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for botid. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'by ID', which is already implied by the action. Baseline of 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 clearly states the action (get), the resource (shareable bot template), and specific contents (description, README, commands, env placeholders). It distinguishes from siblings like get_template_readme (which gets only the readme) and list_templates (which lists 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?

The description implies usage when needing a full template by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_template_readme) or when not to use it. No when-not or alternative names are provided.

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