Get BAS template by ID

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds no further behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or module-specific variance, but it also doesn't contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and good annotations, so the bar for completeness is moderate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what 'details' includes or note that template_id likely comes from a list operation. It is adequate for a simple get-by-ID but lacks richer context that would help an agent anticipate the response or prerequisites.

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 does not explain the parameters in any meaningful way. It mentions 'selected BAS module' but does not elaborate on what module values mean or how template_id should be obtained (e.g., from list_templates). The enum provides some structure, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Get details for a specific template of the selected BAS module' with a specific verb (get), resource (template), and scope (BAS module). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cymulate_bas_list_templates because it explicitly targets a specific template by ID.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a module and template_id) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not say 'to list templates use list_templates' or clarify how this relates to other get_template variants, so guidance is implied but not explicit.

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