sprut_get_catalog_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' plus 'full device template and definition' makes the read-only nature clear, and the defaults for store/controller are disclosed. However, it says nothing about failure behavior when a template is not found, whether lookups are cached or hit live hardware, or any auth requirement.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse and scannable. The only minor inefficiency is rendering parameter documentation as a literal 'Args:' block inside prose rather than as structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented in the description despite 0% schema coverage. What is missing is only edge-case behavior (missing template, invalid store/controller values), which is acceptable for a simple read tool.

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, and it does: it defines file_or_model as a 'template file path or model name,' marks store as optional with a default of MAIN, and gives a concrete example value for controller ('e.g. zigbee'). The only weakness is that the stated MAIN default does not match the schema's null default.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource: 'Get full device template and definition from catalog.' That distinguishes it from list-style siblings (sprut_list_catalog, sprut_list_devices) and from sprut_get_device, since the object is a catalog template. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus sprut_list_catalog (to discover templates) or sprut_get_device (to read a paired device). The only contextual hint is 'Optional catalog store (default MAIN),' which describes a parameter rather than a usage condition. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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