get_template

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, so the description adds little beyond 'saved' and 'by id'. It does not disclose behavior on missing IDs, error handling, or the exact return structure, but remains consistent with the annotation without contradictions.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it concise 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter, the description covers the core purpose and scope. It does not mention what happens if the template is not found or the response format, but given the readOnlyHint and the simple nature, it is largely complete. Slightly brief but adequate.

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 full coverage for the single 'id' parameter, including a helpful description referencing create_template and list_templates. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema sufficiently documents it, meeting the baseline.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'single saved email template by id', making it distinct from list_templates (plural) and create/delete operations. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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 implies usage—fetching a template by its ID—but does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of alternatives like list_templates or render_template. No exclusions or alternate scenarios are provided, leaving usage to be inferred.

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