titan_get_template

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only reveals that the result is a canonical template with structure and callbacks, but does not disclose return format, side effects, read-only nature, or any operational characteristics.

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 short sentence, which is appropriately concise for a no-parameter tool. It is front-loaded with the key noun phrase, but it lacks an explicit action verb and is borderline under-specified.

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 no-parameter tool, the description gives minimal context: it states the template's subject matter but not how it is returned, how it refers to rotation development, or when it is appropriate to fetch. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). There are no parameter semantics to elaborate, and the baseline of 4 applies.

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 names the specific resource (canonical rotation module template) and its key components (structure, required callbacks), making the primary purpose clear. It does not explicitly use a verb like 'returns' or 'provides', and it does not distinguish from sibling tools, but the referent is specific enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as titan_get_role_blueprint or titan_get_settings_format. There are no context clues about typical workflows or exclusionary statements.

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