inspect_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only ('Read'), explains pagination (start, limit, next_start), and describes two methods for providing a template (path or base64+filename). Minor omission: no mention of what happens if both are provided or error handling, but still adequate.

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 and well-structured: a purpose sentence, then usage guidelines, then parameter explanation. No unnecessary words, and important information is front-loaded.

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 the presence of an output schema (so return format is covered), the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage, parameter semantics. It doesn't discuss error conditions or edge cases, but for a read tool with moderate complexity, it is largely complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of template_path vs. template_b64+template_filename as alternative inputs, and describes start and limit for pagination. It could be more explicit about default values, but overall adds value 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 clearly states the tool reads a template's paragraphs in a paginated way to understand structure before editing. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('template's paragraphs'), and provides context for its use. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_template_targets'.

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 includes a 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' section, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to use an alternative (list_template_targets). This is exemplary.

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