get-project-template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses important behavioral traits: 'returns ALL template fields (not filtered)', explains why ('Template data will be used for creating new tasks'), describes template macro handling ('returned as-is, not interpolated'), and explains URL pattern recognition for parameter extraction. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important details, macros, URL patterns, how to get IDs, examples, return fields, usage guidance). While somewhat lengthy, each section adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, and the information is organized for easy scanning.

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 tool's complexity (retrieving detailed template data for task creation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It explains the purpose, usage context, behavioral details, parameter guidance, relationship to sibling tools, and comprehensively lists all return fields with explanations of their significance for task creation.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining 'URL Pattern Recognition' - how to extract projectId from Dooray URLs, and providing concrete examples of parameter usage. It also clarifies the relationship between parameters and template identification.

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 purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific project template' and 'retrieves complete template details'. It distinguishes from its sibling 'get-project-template-list' by specifying this is a detail view, not a list view, and explicitly mentions the sibling tool for obtaining template IDs.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this tool to get full template details before creating a new task from the template' and 'Use the `get-project-template-list` tool to list all templates in a project and get their IDs'. It clearly states when to use this tool versus the sibling list tool and connects it to task creation workflows.

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