get_prompt_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses very little. 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, but the description never says what happens when both parameters are omitted (presumably full), whether section overrides mode, or what the returned template contains. The three output shapes are named but not characterized.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and short, and the two argument lines are tight. The raw 'Args:' block is functional though slightly less polished than prose, and each line does add information. Little waste overall.

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 documentation is not required, and the description correctly focuses on inputs. However, with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the brief argument list is not quite enough—an agent still cannot predict the default behavior or the section/mode interaction before calling.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: 'section' is clarified as 'section number or keyword' and 'mode' enumerates 'full', 'headings', or None. Crucially, it never explains the interaction between the two—what a section means under 'headings' mode, or what mode=None defaults to. This rescues it from a 1 but falls short of full compensation.

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 a verb ('Returns') and a resource ('the MCP prompt template'), which is enough to grasp the general shape. But 'MCP prompt template' is never anchored to anything concrete—which template, whose prompt, or what content—and nothing distinguishes this tool from its long list of database-inspection siblings. An agent knows it retrieves something template-like but not what.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no explanation of when to use 'headings' mode versus 'full' versus a section lookup. The optionality of both parameters leaves the agent to guess at the intended call patterns. Nothing is misleading, but no routing guidance is offered at all.

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