template_load

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '불러옵니다' (loads) implies a read operation, it doesn't specify what 'loading' entails—does it retrieve template data, apply it to a current project, or something else? It also omits critical details like permissions needed, error handling (e.g., if the template doesn't exist), or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the action. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter or output, but its brevity is generally effective.

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 (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'loading' returns (e.g., template data, a success status) or behavioral aspects like error cases. For a tool in a context with many siblings (e.g., template management tools), more detail is needed to ensure proper use.

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, with 'templateName' documented as '템플릿 이름 또는 ID' (template name or ID). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this—it doesn't clarify format, examples, or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds value.

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 '저장된 템플릿을 불러옵니다' (Loads a saved template) clearly states the verb ('불러옵니다' - loads) and resource ('템플릿' - template), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'template_list' or 'template_save', leaving ambiguity about what specifically 'loading' entails versus listing or saving templates.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a saved template first), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'template_list' (which might list templates without loading) or 'svg_open' (which might open files). This lack of context makes it unclear when this specific tool is appropriate.

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