get_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioural detail that the returned spec is meant to be modified before use, but says nothing about spec size, format, or whether the returned object is a scaffold with placeholders. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is an adequate but thin addition.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the intended use. Nothing is padded or restated from the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is legitimately omitted, and the read-only annotations cover safety. The critical gap is the required template_id: with zero schema coverage and no mention of list_templates as the source of IDs, an agent lacks what it needs to invoke the tool correctly on the first try.

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 0% for the single required parameter template_id, so the description carries the full burden and must compensate — and it does not. It never says where template_id comes from (presumably list_templates) or what form it takes, leaving the agent to guess how to obtain a valid value.

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 ("Return a reference architecture spec") and ties it to its downstream consumer, generate_architecture_diagram, so it is distinguishable from that sibling. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from list_templates, which is the more likely confusion point for an agent hunting for 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 gives clear workflow context: fetch a spec, customise it, then pass it to generate_architecture_diagram. That tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. when you already have a spec, or to browse templates use list_templates).

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