ralph_get_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It specifies that it 'Returns the full template configuration' and lists included details, which helps clarify the output. However, it does not address other behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions needed, or whether it's a read-only operation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a bulleted list of return details that is efficient and easy to scan. Every sentence and bullet point adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what is returned but not the format or structure of the output, and it misses behavioral context like error cases. For a tool with no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'template_id' well-documented as 'The ID of the template to retrieve'. The description does not add any additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 as 'Get details of a specific template' with a verb ('Get') and resource ('template'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'ralph_list_templates', which likely lists templates rather than retrieving details for a specific one, though this distinction is implied rather than stated.

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, such as 'ralph_list_templates' for listing templates or other tools for template operations. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic purpose.

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