Inspect Template Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result includes a 'fallback risk' judgement, which is genuinely extra behavioral context, but leaves that term undefined and says nothing about cost or depth of the inspection.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three things returned. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile for a two-parameter read. Only the undefined 'fallback risk' concept keeps it from being fully self-contained.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that a template doc is the subject and adds nothing about workspace scoping or what makes an id valid; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Inspect') plus a precise resource and three named aspects: native structure, tags, and fallback risk. It is clearly distinguishable from authoring/modification siblings, but it never names instantiate_template_native, the tool it logically precedes.

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?

'before instantiation' implies the workflow slot this tool occupies, which is useful context. However, it stops short of naming the alternative it gates or stating when inspection can be skipped, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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