template_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the parameter supports wildcards, which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary elaboration. However, the formatting with extra whitespace and a separate '参数:' section could be slightly more streamlined, but it remains efficient overall.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details on behavior, return format, or error handling. For a simple retrieval tool with one optional parameter, it's minimally adequate but leaves the agent to guess about output structure and operational constraints.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: it explains that 'name' is optional and supports wildcards. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides type/name without explanation), this compensates well by clarifying usage and optionality. Since there's only one parameter, the description effectively covers its semantics.

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 '获取索引模板' (Get index template), which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (index template). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'cat_templates' or 'template_delete', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval method versus other template-related operations.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'cat_templates' (likely listing templates) and 'template_delete' available, the description offers no context about whether this is for detailed retrieval, listing, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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