Get Template Faces

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds value by specifying the scope ('all faces associated with a specific template'), which isn't covered by annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations (e.g., 'Get' aligns with readOnlyHint=true). However, it misses details like rate limits or response format, keeping it from a top score.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get all faces') and avoids redundancy. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 low complexity (single required parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the resource scope and action, but could improve by hinting at return values (e.g., list of faces) or error cases. For a read-only tool with good annotations, it meets most needs but has minor gaps.

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 parameter 'template_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the template_id is used to filter faces. Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description provides marginal context but no extra details on format or constraints.

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 resource ('all faces associated with a specific template'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_face' (single face) and 'dual_list_faces' (all faces without template filter), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully specify scope (e.g., pagination, sorting) which prevents a perfect 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 implies usage context by mentioning 'a specific template', suggesting this tool is for retrieving faces linked to a particular template. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'dual_list_faces' or 'dual_get_face', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication). The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary details.

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