get_template

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read-only operation returning editable options, not modifying anything, and indicates the scope of data returned. This is sufficient behavioral context for a get-style tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and content, then a concise usage note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, content, and usage context. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., template must be a valid template from list_templates), but this is partially implied by the sibling tool, so it is still reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has one required 'template' string with no description (0% coverage). The description uses 'a template' to indicate the parameter identifies the target template, but does not specify the expected format or how to obtain valid template names, leaving the agent to infer from sibling tools like list_templates.

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 action ('Get a template's full editable options') and enumerates the content (available images, qemu versions, default field values). It also distinguishes from sibling tool list_images, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need more than list_images' and provides a concrete example (qemu_arch/qemu_nic/qemu_options), offering clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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