get--v3-domain_name-templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get templates' implies a read operation but fails to describe key behaviors: it doesn't specify if this is a list operation, pagination handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action, making it inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and no 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 extremely concise with just two words, 'Get templates', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. While this brevity leads to under-specification in other dimensions, it scores high for conciseness as every word directly contributes to the core purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 (4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, usage context, or return values. For a tool that likely involves retrieving templates with pagination and domain-specific filtering, the description lacks essential details needed for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (domain_name, page, limit, p) are documented in the schema. The description 'Get templates' adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what domain_name refers to, how pagination works with page and p, what limit controls, or the purpose of the enum values for page. This leaves all parameters undocumented and unclear.

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 'Get templates' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'templates', but lacks specificity about what templates are being retrieved (e.g., email templates for a domain) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name' or 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions'. This minimal description provides only basic purpose without clarity on scope or distinction.

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, context, or exclusions, such as requiring a domain_name parameter or how it differs from related template tools. With multiple sibling tools involving templates, the lack of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on appropriate selection.

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