get_prompt_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Returns') which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. The description is minimal and doesn't provide the behavioral context needed for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated rather than a separate 'Args:' section.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and moderate complexity, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden, but more context about the template structure would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that 'section' accepts section numbers or keywords, and 'mode' accepts 'full', 'headings', or None. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide examples or explain what 'headings' mode returns versus 'full'.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('MCP prompt template'), and specifies what can be returned (full, headings, or specific section). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all PostgreSQL monitoring tools, making this a specialized template retrieval function. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with any similar template-related tools since none exist among siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or contrast with other tools (though sibling tools are unrelated PostgreSQL monitoring functions, so no direct alternatives exist). The parameter documentation implies usage scenarios but doesn't explicitly state when to choose specific parameter values.

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