gh_load_template

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a pure read operation but gets no destructiveHint coverage. The description says 'Open a bundled template on the canvas' but does not disclose whether it replaces existing canvas content, preserves it, or otherwise mutates the canvas beyond loading. The mutation scope is left to inference.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and then stating the return payload. It is appropriately concise and structured, though the missing usage/alternative context is a substantive omission.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values do not need further elaboration, but the description does not clarify how this tool relates to the near-sibling 'gh_run_template,' nor does it explain the effect of loading on the current canvas. For a mutating tool with only readOnlyHint=false and no other behavioral annotations, this is an important gap.

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 description adds no parameter-level detail for 'name' or 'canvas_target,' but the input schema already provides useful descriptions for both: name is sourced from gh_template_list, and canvas_target accepts 'active' or 'new.' Since the schema carries the parameter semantics, the description does not need to repeat them, though a brief pointer would have been helpful.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open a bundled template on the canvas' and clarifies the return value as 'template_id + parameter map.' This is clear and not a tautology. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling 'gh_run_template.'

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'gh_run_template' or 'gh_template_list.' The name parameter in the schema points to gh_template_list for valid names, but the description itself does not explain the selection context or say when loading is preferred over running a template.

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