Get Template

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations declare, such as rate limits or authentication needs, but doesn't contradict them.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get full details'), and every word earns its place by specifying the resource and included details without 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?

Given the single parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate for a read-only tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail return values like structure or pagination, leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or where to find template IDs, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'template', specifying what details are retrieved ('property schema, actions, and factory config'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_list_templates' (which lists) and 'dual_create_template' (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_public_get_template' (public version).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_list_templates' for overviews or 'dual_public_get_template' for public access. The description implies usage for retrieving full details of a specific template, but lacks explicit context or prerequisites.

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