Get Template Params

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool clones the template base and reads params.json partitioned into two/three regions, which is some real context, but it says nothing about authentication needs, cloning cost/latency, caching, or error behavior for an invalid git_url.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from compression into dense jargon rather than from front-loaded clarity. The single cryptic clause mixes purpose, mechanism, and output structure without a readable lead statement.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain the return shape and the workflow position itself. For a 2-parameter introspection tool sitting beside get_combo_params and the generate_* tools, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently or know what it will get back.

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 adds nothing about the two parameters. It never explains that git_url identifies the template repository to clone or that version optionally pins a revision, so the agent gets no semantic grounding for either input.

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 gestures at parameter introspection ('参数内省') and mentions reading params.json sections (native/derived/selection), but the phrasing is opaque jargon rather than a plain statement of what the tool returns. It never says it fetches the parameter set for a given template repository, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_combo_params.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The fragment '落参与选择地基' hints that this is a prerequisite step before parameter selection/generation (generate_single/generate_multi), but the agent must infer this and is given no rule for choosing this over get_combo_params.

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