get_template_instructions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool may return nothing if no instructions document was loaded, the 'section' parameter can filter to a named section, and the response carries a 'sections' list. It also warns about context-window behavior (long builds push first read out of context), which is genuinely useful beyond annotations.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states what the tool returns, the second differentiates it from the sibling, the third explains when it exists, and the fourth gives usage timing. The parameter note is cleanly separated at the end. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool returns, when it exists, how to use the section parameter, and when to call it. The output schema handles return-value details, and the annotations cover safety. No critical gaps remain.

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 explains the 'section' parameter meaningfully (omit for whole document, or name one from the 'sections' list) and clarifies the presentation_id context implicitly. It doesn't spell out presentation_id's format, but the required parameter is self-evident from the tool's purpose and the description's context.

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 the tool retrieves the template author's build instructions for the current deck, and explicitly contrasts it with get_design_guidance. It names the specific resource (template instructions document) and the verb (get/read), making it easy for an agent to distinguish from 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: read before planning the deck, re-read before building a slide, and notes these rules override generic guidance. It also names the alternative (get_design_guidance) and explains the difference, plus tells the agent when the tool may not exist (only when template was loaded with instructions).

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