getTemplatePage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context that it returns current source code and is used for confirmation and backup, which aligns with the annotations. No contradictions; the description reinforces the safe, non-destructive nature.

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 well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then details parameters, then explains use cases and alternatives. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be made more concise, but overall effective.

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 that parameters are fully documented in the schema, annotations cover safety, and the description covers usage context and alternatives, the description is complete. Though no output schema exists, the description states what is returned ('current template source code'), which is sufficient.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing a clear list of page_type values with Japanese explanations (e.g., 'index(共通)'), which is more intuitive than the schema's enum descriptions. This helps an agent understand the mapping.

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 that the tool gets HTML and CSS source for a specified template page type, using the verb '取得する' (get) and the resource 'template page'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning updateTemplatePage for editing, getTemplatePreview for preview, and getTemplates for listing.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for checking current value before editing or backup) and provides explicit alternatives: updateTemplatePage for editing, getTemplatePreview for preview, getTemplates for listing. This gives clear guidance on tool selection.

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