get_template

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description states save_to writes a full-size PNG to a path, a filesystem side effect. That directly contradicts the read-only annotation, so this is an annotation contradiction and the disclosure cannot be considered trustworthy.

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 dense but front-loads the core resource and devotes space to necessary variant details. It remains somewhat tangled with parenthetical explanations, so it is not maximally efficient.

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?

With no output schema and 0% schema descriptions, more is needed about the return value when save_to is omitted, and about routing versus sibling tools. The parameter behavior is well covered, but the overall definition has gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents all three: sheet values and dimensions, the two style modes with their contents, and save_to's local write behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 names the resource (a sheet's template) and its variants, and explains what each style contains. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like get_kit_spec or render_sheets, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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?

It explains what each style is for (guide for placing layers, clean for painting a whole sheet via route B), which gives implied usage. It does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites/exclusions.

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