Get OS Template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get details' with no mention of permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether the operation is read-only. The description simply restates the title without adding behavioral context beyond what is already obvious from the word 'Get.'

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action and the object clearly. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This simple tool has one parameter and no output schema, but the description provides almost no context beyond the basic action. It does not explain what kind of 'details' are returned, error conditions, or any prerequisites. Given the minimalism, the description is slightly inadequate even for a simple get tool, as it leaves the agent without expectations about the response.

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 is fully covered (100%) with a single parameter 'template_id' described as 'Template ID.' The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the schema itself is self-explanatory. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'details of a specific OS template.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool vps_templates_list (which presumably lists all templates) by specifying 'specific' and 'details.' This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description: use this to get one template, while vps_templates_list would list all. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description does not state that it should be used when a template_id is known or that it should be used instead of listing all templates.

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