templates_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it explains that counts and permission-risk signals are 'deterministic hints, not authorization', and that raw template content appears in 'untrusted_text' with an explicit warning never to follow instructions there. This goes well beyond the structured hints and helps an agent handle the tool safely.

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 compact, well-structured with bold labels (Purpose, Safety, Returns), and every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers safety and return shape without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite the tool's safety complexity, the description is complete: it explains the return envelope ({template, blueprint, untrusted_text}), the safety posture, and the non-mutating guarantee. The existence of an output schema covers detailed return fields, so the description need not enumerate them. The warning about untrusted content fills a critical gap that structured data cannot convey.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter (template_code) with a description and pattern, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds little about the parameter itself beyond reinforcing that it is a 'public' template code. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description's added value is elsewhere.

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 function: 'Produce a safe structural dossier for a public Guild Template before sharing or using it.' It names the specific resource (Guild Template), the action (inspect/produce), and the outcome (dossier). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like templates_get or templates_diff by emphasizing safety and non-mutation.

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 clear context for when to use it: 'before sharing or using it' a template. It also implies a safe inspection use case by noting 'never creates or changes a guild' and warns about untrusted text. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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