Describe Template

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by enumerating the specific information retrieved (name, description, type, etc.), giving the agent an expectation of the output content. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but these are not expected for a simple describe operation.

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 concise, front-loaded, and free of fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph quickly details what information is retrieved and the general use case. Every sentence contributes useful content.

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 read-only describe tool with a full output schema and high schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It conveys the tool's domain and content but does not elaborate on exclusions or equivalent alternatives (e.g., describe_command_template), which would improve completeness in a larger toolset.

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 100% for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on the 'project' parameter or how it interacts with 'name' beyond what the schema states. The description's phrase 'specific template' aligns with 'name' but offers no new semantic detail.

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 tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific template from Automation Studio.' It specifies the resource (template) and the action (describe), and lists the exact fields returned (name, description, type, group, command, content, sample data), distinguishing it from sibling tools like render_template or describe_command_template.

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 when detailed template information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The sentence about template usage provides domain context but not direct guidance on tool selection.

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