cm_get_template

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds moderate value by specifying the returned fields ('name, preview URLs, screenshot'). However, it does not disclose potential error states (e.g., missing templateId, permissions), which would be useful given the lack of output schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given the tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and expected output. Missing information on error handling or success status, but for a straightforward read operation this is acceptable.

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% with one required 'templateId' described as 'Template ID.' The description does not elaborate on this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 applies since schema sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 retrieves basic details of a template, specifically 'name, preview URLs, screenshot'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cm_get_client_templates (which lists templates) and cm_copy_template (which copies). The verb 'Get' and resource 'template details' are unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Context from sibling names suggests it's for individual template retrieval, but the description does not exclude cases where cm_get_client_templates might be more appropriate. The tool's single parameter implies need for a known templateId, but no such prerequisite is mentioned.

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