common-test-base-template-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read-only check operation ('checks'), implying no destructive effects, but does not address potential side effects, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (a check operation with 3 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on the return value (e.g., boolean result or error messages) and behavioral context, which are important for a tool with no annotations.

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 fully documents the three parameters (id, template, database). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the inheritance mechanism or template ID format. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Checks if the item inherits from the specified template by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('checks'), resource ('item'), and condition ('inherits from the specified template'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'common-test-base-template-by-path' beyond the 'by ID' distinction in the name. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the sibling 'common-test-base-template-by-path' or other related tools like 'common-get-item-template-by-id', leaving the agent without context for selection among similar tools in the list.

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