get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'get all' entails (e.g., list vs. details). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 three words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently states the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools indicating a complex domain (email/template management), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address pagination, return format, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader toolset, making it inadequate 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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain the meaning of domain_name, template_name, page, limit, or p, leaving all 5 parameters undocumented. The description fails to provide any semantic context beyond the tool name.

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 all template versions' clearly states the action (get) and resource (template versions), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name' or 'get--v3-domain_name-templates-template_name-versions-version_nam'. It lacks specificity about what 'all' means in context.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring domain_name and template_name, nor does it contrast with sibling tools that might handle single versions or templates. Usage context 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.