templates_recommend

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: read-only and strict safety gates, rejection criteria, confidence levels for unknown dirty states, source permission risk handling, and fencing of untrusted text. It also explicitly states 'This tool never changes a guild', consistent with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 well-structured with bolded sections (Purpose, When to use, Safety, Returns) and front-loaded with the most important information. Every sentence carries meaningful detail, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage scenarios, safety behavior, and return values (primary template, bounded inspirations, evidence, digests, rejection reasons). Combined with the output schema and annotations, it provides a complete picture for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Both parameters in the input schema have complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description contributes no additional parameter-level semantics. The schema already explains 'request' and 'preferred_primary_code' well, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('recommend') and resource ('Discord template from bundled public catalog') for natural-language server requests. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like templates_list or templates_get by focusing on recommendation and portfolio selection.

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 includes a 'When to use' section with concrete examples ('build a professional gaming server', 'design a technology community') and instructs to use this tool first. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to decide when to invoke it.

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