codix.template.get

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It discloses the output nature (file tree, commands, notes) but does not mention side effects, error handling, prerequisites, or any security implications. For a simple retrieval tool, the description is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and output. It contains no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and minimal annotations, the description covers the core purpose and expected return values. It could be more complete by hinting at when to use it relative to siblings, but this is a minor gap for a simple template retrieval 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?

The schema for 'id' has an enum but no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by mapping the parameter to example technologies (Laravel, Next.js, Flutter, WordPress, API, docs, and more), which helps an agent understand the meaning of the enum values and infer the expected input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('project template') with detailed scope (file tree, commands, notes) and lists supported technologies. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like codix.architecture.get or codix.stack.recommend.

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 by enumerating template categories (Laravel, Next.js, Flutter, etc.), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any 'use when' / 'instead of' guidance. The intended context is somewhat inferable, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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