Read a rewrite template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the review-before-apply framing; it discloses nothing further about failure behavior or template-path constraints.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, front-loading what is returned before the rationale. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description plus schema is sufficient to call it correctly; no output schema exists, and 'contents of one rewrite template' adequately indicates the return. It could still note behavior on a missing path, hence not a 5.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example absolute path, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no additional meaning about path format or validity, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific resource (one rewrite template) and what it returns (its contents), and the title's 'Read' verb is unambiguous. The distinction from site_rewrite_templates (list all) and site_set_rewrite (apply) is inferable but not stated, so it stops short of a clear sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'so a rule can be reviewed before it is applied to a live site' implies the use case (preview prior to applying). However, it names no alternative tool and gives no when-not guidance, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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