get-template-modifications

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 mentions authentication via apiKey (optional if set in environment) and template handling, but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of modifications, JSON structure), error conditions, rate limits, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying detail about template handling. There is no wasted language, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and behavioral complexity. It lacks details on what 'modifications' means in the return value, error handling, or operational constraints, making it inadequate for full agent understanding without additional context.

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 already documents all parameters (apiKey, templateId, templateType) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting that templateId can be ID or name for studio templates, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 clearly states the action ('Get available modifications') and resource ('for a specific template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-library-templates or get-studio-templates. However, it doesn't specify what 'modifications' entail (e.g., editing options, versions, customizations), leaving some ambiguity about the exact output.

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 implies usage by specifying it works for both library and studio templates and mentions ID or name for studio templates, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-library-templates or get-studio-templates, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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