mailkite_get_template

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

The annotation already exposes readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns the complete template payload (subject, html, text, theme), covers both ownership scopes (tpl_ and base_), and mentions the authentication token requirement. This is valuable context that the agent needs before calling the tool and that is not present in the schema or annotations.

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 two sentences that front-load the core purpose and output fields, then state the scope and the authentication requirement. There is no filler, tautology, or redundant repetition of the schema or annotations. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description delivers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: the return fields are explicitly listed, the identifier conventions for both user and base templates are given, and the authentication prerequisite is stated. Nothing essential is missing.

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 provides full coverage for the single `id` param but merely labels it 'Path parameter `id`'. The description adds real meaning by explaining that `id` can be either a user template id (tpl_…) or a base template id (base_…), which is actionable for constructing a valid request. This exceeds the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Get one template') and explicitly enumerates the returned fields (subject, html, text, theme), which distinguishes it clearly from list-like siblings such as mailkite_list_templates or mailkite_list_base_templates. It also clarifies that it accepts both user templates (tpl_…) and base templates (base_…), leaving no ambiguity about which resource is handled.

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 it—when you need the full content of a single template—and it states a prerequisite ('Requires a management session token'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., 'use list_templates when you only need summaries') or state exclusions. The usage context is clear but no direct routing guidance is given.

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