get_template

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'get' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not mention authentication or permission requirements, and gives no information about error behavior or rate limits. The addition of 'including HTML, CSS, and sample data' describes return content but not side effects or safety.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then specifies the return content. There is zero fluff or repetition; every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description partially covers return values by naming HTML, CSS, and sample data. It also indirectly identifies the input (template_id) and the scope ('a specific template'). For a simple read tool with one parameter, this is largely complete, though it could mention what happens on invalid IDs or whether additional metadata is returned.

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%, so the schema already documents template_id as 'The ID of the template to retrieve'. The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, examples, or constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific template') and clarifies the content ('HTML, CSS, and sample data'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_templates (which would return a collection) and get_snippet (which targets a different resource type).

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 implies that this tool is used when you need details about one specific template (as opposed to listing templates), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_templates or get_snippet, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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