get_template_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond the annotations: an 8-second timeout and a 1MB size limit, which materially affect invocation and failure handling. It stops short of explaining what happens on limit breach or how the origin is resolved.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the fetched resources and appends the limits compactly; no filler. The phrasing 'the one configured MotionVault origin' is slightly cryptic but does not waste 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (HTML plus asset manifest), and it covers the key operational limits. For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the remaining gaps (id semantics, auth/prerequisites, limit-breach behavior) are modest.

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% and the description says nothing about the single 'id' parameter, its slug format, or what entity it identifies. The only hint ('from the one configured MotionVault origin') implies the id resolves against that origin but gives no format or validity detail beyond the raw regex in 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 names a specific verb ('Fetch') and precise resources ('complete public standalone HTML and asset manifest'), and states the scope ('from the one configured MotionVault origin'). It does not, however, disambiguate from close siblings like get_template, get_source_links, get_asset_manifest, or verify_template_source.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The phrase 'from the one configured MotionVault origin' implies scope but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice over get_template_source-like siblings such as get_template or verify_template_source.

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