Check one complete template

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what data the tool returns (preview, source, download, palette variants). No contradictions with 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 one sentence that lists all returned items concisely. It is front-loaded with the 'Return' verb and avoids fluff. However, the long list could be more readable with bullet points or structured phrasing.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description sufficiently describes the tool's purpose for a single-parameter tool. It lists all expected return elements, making it complete for the agent to understand what to expect. No mention of related siblings, but that is covered by usage guidelines dimension.

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% (one parameter 'name' with a clear description). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a template summary with multiple specific data points (stack, license, accessibility status, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_template' (which likely searches) and 'check_component' (component-specific), but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 siblings (e.g., find_template, check_component, alternatives). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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