get_type_template

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the safety profile, the description adds useful return-shape context: full ContentTypeDef fields annotated with valueFormat + valueExample, and that templates may be stored or built-in. It does not add permission, rate-limit, or error behavior details.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads what the tool returns, then immediately gives the intended usage context.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what an agent receives: a full ContentTypeDef with per-field valueFormat and valueExample annotations. The input schema already covers parameter details, so the definition is complete for calling this read-only lookup tool.

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%, so the name and site parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that lookup is by name and does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: get one type template's full ContentTypeDef by name, including stored or built-in templates. It distinguishes this one-template read from siblings like list_type_templates and make_type_template by emphasizing the full definition and field annotations.

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 clearly names two use cases: inspecting a template before instantiate_type_template and using it as a starting definition for create_content_type. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it directly with list_type_templates.

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