sigma_get_template

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which align with the 'Get' verb. The description does not contradict these annotations, but it also adds no additional behavioral context beyond the basic read operation. No error handling, return format, or special conditions are disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable and easy to process.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention what 'details' includes, nor does it clarify potential ambiguity (e.g., whether this refers to a standard template or a shared template). The output schema and annotations compensate for some gaps, leaving the description just adequate.

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 bears full responsibility for explaining the parameter. It does not elaborate on what template_id refers to, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. The schema only provides the title 'Template Id', which the description does not enrich.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'template details'. This distinguishes it from other get_* tools (e.g., get_workbook, get_connection) since it explicitly targets templates. However, the word 'details' is vague and does not specify exactly what information is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or contextual cues. The description simply states the action without explaining the appropriate scenario for using sigma_get_template.

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