get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name

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 but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or any rate limits. The single phrase 'Get template' fails to describe any behavioral traits, leaving critical operational context missing.

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?

While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It lacks front-loaded critical information and fails to earn its place by providing necessary context. The brevity here is a detriment, as it omits essential details without adding clarity.

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 complexity of a tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without enough information to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect in return.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (domain_name, template_name, active) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their expected formats, or the optional 'active' parameter's purpose. This leaves all parameters semantically undefined.

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 template' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of template (email, web, configuration) or what resource domain it operates on, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-templates' or 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions'. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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 like authentication, differentiate it from related sibling tools (e.g., to list templates vs. get a specific one), or specify any context for usage. This leaves the agent with no actionable information for tool selection.

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