template

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, so the description rightly focuses on the returned content ('pre-filled templates'). However, it does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether the templates are static or dynamic, whether variables are required for certain types, or how listing vs. getting changes the output. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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 and followed by a usage note. It is appropriately sized with no obvious filler, though the list of types is somewhat long and could be moved to the schema if it were part of an enum (it is not here, so it earns its place).

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 read-only tool that returns templates, the description covers what is retrieved and hints at usage. However, it lacks details on return structure (although no output schema exists, the description could describe the shape of a template or the effect of variables), and does not clarify the default action or listing behavior. Completeness is minimal viable given the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema already documents all parameters (type, action, variables). The description adds little param-level detail beyond the type enumeration; it does not explain the 'action' parameter or how 'variables' works. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Get pre-filled templates' with a scope of 'common vault item types'. It goes further by enumerating all supported types (adr, prd, decision, etc.) and a use case ('Use to scaffold new documents'), which makes the purpose unambiguous. Even without distinct sibling names, it clearly distinguishes this tool from other vault operations like read/write/search.

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 a high-level usage context ('Use to scaffold new documents') but does not specify when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'spec' or 'read'. It also omits any mention of actions (list vs get) and when to use each. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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