get_system_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation ('Get details') and states return content, but fails to mention permissions, side effects, rate limits, or availability constraints. The description lacks sufficient transparency for a tool with no annotations.

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 brief and uses a structured docstring format with Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary words, but the Args section could be more concise by integrating into the main sentence. Still, it is well-organized and straightforward.

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 description covers the basic purpose, parameters, and return value. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), it is mostly complete. However, it omits potential error conditions, authentication requirements, or relationship to other templates (e.g., system vs CLI templates). With no annotations and no output schema details, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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 0% description coverage, leaving the description responsible for explaining parameters. It only restates the parameter names ('adom: ADOM name', 'name: System template name') without providing format, valid values, examples, or contextual meaning. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get details' and identifies the resource 'system template'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_system_templates (which lists all) and assign/unassign system templates (which modify). The description includes the return value scope, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states the required parameters (adom and name), which indirectly tells when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_template or list_system_templates. No exclusions or context about prerequisites are given.

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