get_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns LaTeX content, which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 has an output schema (which likely describes the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance (e.g., no full enum list), it's adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context and usage compared to siblings.

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 'template_name' by listing example values (modern, classic, minimal), which the schema does not provide (0% coverage). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't specify if these are the only valid options or just examples.

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: 'Get the content of a resume template.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('resume template'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'read_resume', which might retrieve different types of content.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_templates' (which might list template names) or 'read_resume' (which might retrieve resume data), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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