get_template_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and 'full workflow JSON' indicates the return type, but it does not explicitly state side effects, authorization requirements, error behavior, or that it does not modify the template. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence of seven words: 'Get full workflow JSON for a template'. Every word carries meaning, with no filler or redundant statements. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 one-parameter getter, the description plus schema provide the essentials: what the tool returns and what input it needs. However, it lacks contextual completeness regarding the relationship between templates and workflows, when to use this over 'get_workflow' or 'export_workflow_as_template', and what 'full workflow JSON' includes. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more context, which is not provided.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the 'id' parameter is already documented as 'Template ID from search results'. The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter or its format. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full workflow JSON for a template'), making the primary function clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_workflow' by the focus on templates, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as 'search_templates' or 'import_template'.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, not the context or conditions under which it should be selected. Sibling tools like 'search_templates' and 'import_template' are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when this is the appropriate choice.

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