template_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read operation ('Get') and notes that the response includes LLM guidance, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it doesn't explain what the guidance entails or how it should be interpreted, leaving significant ambiguity.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and a brief note in the second. There is no wasted words or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is functional but not fully complete. The mention of 'LLM guidance' is vague and could confuse the agent about response format or usage. No error handling or fallback behavior is described, and the relationship to other template tools remains unclear.

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 100%, with each parameter (name, category, subcategory) already well-documented. The description only repeats 'category and name' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, nor does it mention subcategory. This aligns with the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 retrieves a specific template by category and name, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like template_get_case_workflow or template_get_routing_workflow, but 'specific template' implies a direct get operation.

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 vs alternatives such as template_list or template_get_case_workflow. The mention of 'LLM guidance for proper usage workflow' is a feature of the response, not a usage guideline, and no exclusions or context are given.

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