get_smart_contract_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavioral detail 'Includes attributed header,' but does not cover potential errors (e.g., if slug not found), read-only nature, or any constraints. Minimal but adequate for a simple fetch.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and resource. Every word contributes value; no redundancy.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention the return type or that it's a read-only operation to fully compensate for missing annotations.

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%, meaning the schema only defines type 'string' for 'slug'. The description mentions 'by slug' but does not elaborate on format, examples, or case-sensitivity, thus adding little meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool fetches a specific smart contract template by slug, and notes the inclusion of an attributed header. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'smart contract template' are specific, and the description implicitly distinguishes it from list_smart_contract_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_smart_contract_templates. While the purpose implies usage when the slug is known, there is no direct comparison or exclusions provided.

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