get_prompt_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'returns' templates, implying a read operation, but does not explain what happens when the 'topic' parameter is omitted, how the response is structured, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool without annotations or 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?

The description is effective and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence and listing the topics in a compact second sentence. However, the second sentence largely duplicates the schema's enum values, which is slightly redundant, though it still adds convenience by keeping key info visible without opening the schema.

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?

For a tool with only one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not clarify the return format, default behavior when 'topic' is omitted, or how the templates are categorized. The context is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior without further investigation, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining the parameter. It repeats the enum values ('ask-cio|few-shot|compact-tasks|anti-patterns|all') from the schema without adding deeper meaning (e.g., what 'ask-cio' actually represents or what 'few-shot CoT' entails). The first sentence adds slight context ('few-shot CoT' expands 'few-shot'), but overall the parameter semantics are barely enriched beyond the structured schema.

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 states 'Returns token-efficient prompt templates' and names the specific topics (Ask CIO, few-shot CoT, compact tasks, anti-patterns), clearly defining the tool's action and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_architecture_patterns or get_git_workflow, which focus on other domains.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, recommended scenarios, or exclude cases, and with many sibling 'get' tools present, the lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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