get_template

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

Goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that Staticbot never returns credential values, instructing to rely on `configured` to distinguish withheld from not set, and explaining that `migrationBackendDerived=true` means user input cannot take precedence. It also defines security-related statuses and how to handle them. This is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint.

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 dense but every clause carries operational guidance — credential handling, migration field interpretation, and configOverride constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details behavior; no filler, though the density makes it slightly heavy.

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 an output schema present, the description covers all non-schema behavior: credential redaction, how to interpret `configured`, migration field semantics, configOverride restrictions, and security-review actions. An agent has enough context to call the tool and correctly interpret the result.

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 only parameter, `id`, is already fully described in the schema as 'Template ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

Description opens with 'Get details of a template including its backend-classified configuration variables' — a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from the sibling list_templates. The singular 'template' and 'details' clearly indicate this is a single-item retrieval, not a list operation.

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 rich conditional guidance for handling migration fields and configOverride, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_templates. Usage context is implied by the purpose rather than explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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