Get Template Assets

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'storage assets' entail. It doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal additional value.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 annotations cover safety and behavior, and the schema fully documents the single parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values (e.g., what 'storage assets' includes), and it lacks usage context, 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 ('List all storage assets') and resource ('associated with a template'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_template_faces' or 'dual_get_template', which might retrieve different template-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' or 'dual_get_template_faces', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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