template_slots

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses conversion to API format, reports literal inputs and current values, and identifies limitations for subgraph/unknown nodes. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits, missing some behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: first sentence states core function, second explains process, third details boundaries. No redundancy or wasted words.

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?

While the description explains output and limitations well, it completely omits parameter semantics. Given zero schema coverage, this omission makes the tool's input interface opaque. An output schema exists (not provided), so return values are not required, but parameter documentation is missing.

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 0% and the description fails to explain any of the three parameters ('name', 'pack', 'source'). The description focuses entirely on output behavior, leaving parameter meaning undefined. This is a critical gap for agent invocation.

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 begins with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('a template's overridable inputs'), immediately stating the tool's core function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_template' by emphasizing it avoids loading full graph JSON, and explicitly links to 'run_template' for subsequent parameter changes.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('without loading the full graph JSON', 'far smaller than the raw graph') and when not to use it ('Subgraph/unknown nodes can't be expanded', 'their inputs aren't overridable this way'). It also names the sibling 'run_template' as the next step, providing clear contextual guidance.

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