get_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses 24h caching with a version floor, that it does NOT read from the local install, the conditional absence of local_check on drifted payloads, and the semantic difference between checked:false (no runnable key, read via .get()) and checked:true/runnable:false. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure beyond any structured field.

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 longer than average, but every sentence carries load-bearing information about conditional keys, caching, and check semantics. The structure — purpose line, CLI wrapper, arg breakdown, then conditional/caching caveats — front-loads the core purpose and organizes complexity well. Slightly dense, but justified by the tool's conditional behavior.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke correctly: response conditions (local_check presence/absence), checked/runnable semantics, caching behavior, and the relationship to fetch_template. The main gap is the overall response shape beyond local_check ('details/schema' is unspecified), but the invocation-critical behavior is fully covered.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains check_local: what true adds, what checked:true/false mean, what false skips, and the conditional-key caveat. The name parameter is only implied by 'Show one template's details/schema,' but its meaning is self-evident from the schema's string type and required status.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource statement: 'Show one template's details/schema, and whether your install can run it.' It further differentiates from the sibling fetch_template by positioning itself as 'Step 2 of the on-ramp: inspect before fetch_template(name, out_path) writes the runnable JSON.' An agent can distinguish this from fetch_template and run_template without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit workflow placement — inspect with this tool before calling fetch_template — and explains when the local check must happen ('the check still must happen before the run'). It does not enumerate exclusions or alternative conditions (e.g., when to skip straight to run_template), but the on-ramp sequencing provides clear enough usage context.

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