sentinel_analytics_rule_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 for behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action ('Get') without any information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, return format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration. While it lacks detail, what's present is structurally efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (a tool for retrieving security analytics templates), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret results.

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 input schema has 1 parameter ('kwargs') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no parameter details whatsoever—it doesn't explain what 'kwargs' should contain (e.g., a template ID or filter criteria), expected format, or examples. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a specific Sentinel analytics rule template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_list' by specifying retrieval of a single template rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'sentinel_analytics_rule_get' (which gets rules, not templates), so it's not perfectly specific.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a template ID), compare to sibling tools like 'sentinel_analytics_rule_templates_list' for browsing, or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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