study_template_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description's added value is the return payload (content hash and configuration signature), which signals an optimistic-concurrency/verification use. However it says nothing about how the optional target_id and expected_layout_id preconditions gate this read, even though their schema text refers to "changes" and "before writing" — an odd fit for a read-only tool that the description leaves unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope constraint adjacent to the verb and the return payload as a trailing qualifier. No boilerplate or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the minimum by naming the hash and signature fields, but it omits not-found/error behavior and does not reconcile why a read-only tool carries a target_id "required for changes" and a write-guard expected_layout_id. Adequate but leaves real questions for this tool's 3-parameter, 67%-coverage surface.

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 coverage is 67%; target_id and expected_layout_id are documented in the schema, and template_id — the only undocumented parameter — is partially compensated for by "by exact ID," which establishes exact-match rather than fuzzy lookup. No added detail on min/max lengths, casing, or how expected_layout_id interacts with a read.

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?

Specific verb (read) plus specific resource (one native study template) constrained to an exact ID lookup, and it names the payload returned (content hash, study/configuration signature). It implicitly separates itself from study_template_list by requiring an exact ID, but it never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

"By exact ID" implies you must already know the template ID (i.e., call study_template_list first), and that is the only usage guidance present. No explicit when-not, no mention of study_template_snapshot or study_template_export as alternatives, and no statement about behavior when the ID does not exist.

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