mkt_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description takes on the full disclosure burden. It does state the important behavioral traits of being read-only and not writing to the workspace, which is valuable for a mutation-averse agent. However, it does not explain what 'validating an instance' does, whether validation has side effects, or what the template registry returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the read-only constraint and the 'does not write workspace' caveat front-loaded. Nothing is redundant, though the sentence packs several distinct concepts without separating them.

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?

With four undocumented parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much open. It never explains the shape of 'fields', the effect of 'lint_registry', or what a validation result looks like, which is a substantial gap for an agent trying to call this correctly.

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 0% across 4 parameters, including a nested free-form object ('fields') and an undocumented boolean ('lint_registry'). The description mentions versions and required fields in passing but does not map meaning to template_id, version, fields, or lint_registry, so an agent cannot tell what to pass in the nested object or when lint_registry should be enabled.

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 gives a specific resource (GTM deliverable templates, 32 of them) and concrete content: versions, required fields, QA, plus the ability to validate instances. That is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it never names the lint-oriented siblings (mkt_plan_lint, mkt_voice_lint) whose scope overlaps with 'validate instances'.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that it is used for looking up template structure or validating an instance. There is no explicit statement about when to pick this versus the sibling lint tools, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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