Email Templates Get

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's contributions are the required OAuth scope (read_email_templates) and the API version (2025-03) — both real, operationally relevant facts an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It stops short of describing what the returned template object contains, but an output schema absence is partly offset by the fields parameter.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines: purpose first, then endpoint, scope, and version. Every line carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 simple single-resource read with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the call mechanics (endpoint, scope, version). It does not say what a template object looks like or what a not-found/404 response means, which leaves a modest gap since no output schema exists.

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%, with templateID, fields, and response_format all documented inline including an enum default. The description adds nothing beyond restating the templateID path variable, so it sits at the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 verb and resource ('Get one email template') and pins it to an endpoint (GET /email-templates/{templateID}). The 'one' scoping plus the singular resource path cleanly separates it from siblings tiendanube_email_templates_list and tiendanube_email_templates_update.

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?

Use is implied by the name/endpoint shape, but the description never states when to call this versus tiendanube_email_templates_list or what precondition (a known templateID) is needed. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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