openwisp_get_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation via the HTTP GET endpoint, but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. unknown UUID), permissions, or how large/structured the returned config may be.

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?

One sentence with the category tag and endpoint suffix; the purpose is front-loaded and nothing is repeated. The raw endpoint URL is somewhat redundant with the prose but not disruptive.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what the resource is and what the response contains (NetJSON config structure), which is close to sufficient; only error handling and sibling disambiguation are 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the template UUID. The description only repeats the parameter as a path placeholder, adding no new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Get) and resource (configuration template) and states what it returns (details including the NetJSON config structure). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely named sibling openwisp_get_template_configuration, leaving ambiguity about which one to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single template by its UUID. There is no statement of when to use this versus openwisp_list_templates or openwisp_get_template_configuration, and no prerequisite or context is given.

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