postgrid_get_template

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'Get,' which conveys a read-only operation, and it discloses that the response will include HTML content. However, it does not address error cases such as a nonexistent ID, or authentication or rate-limit behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler; the action and object are front-loaded and the extra clause about HTML content is informative rather than redundant.

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 operation, the description covers the input (ID) and a key output detail (HTML content). It would be more complete if it explicitly described the rest of the returned template object, especially because no output schema is provided.

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%: the id property is already described with type and example 'template_xxx'. The tool description only repeats the notion of 'by ID' and adds no further parameter-level meaning.

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?

States the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'a template by ID,' and adds that the result includes HTML content. This makes it easy to distinguish from listing, creating, updating, or deleting templates, all of which appear as siblings.

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 only implies usage: call it when you have a template ID and need the template object. It does not explicitly contrast with list_templates for enumeration or update/delete for mutations, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the sibling names.

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