construct_params_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — omitting arguments yields all archetypes — but says nothing about the shape or size of the returned document or whether the caller is expected to edit and re-submit it.

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?

It is short and has no filler, and the no-argument default is placed last where it reads clearly. However, the opening is a bare noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, and the parenthetical enum list adds length while being inaccurate, so the compactness is partly wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what is returned; it does name the artifact ('a parameter document to fill in') and covers the default case, which is adequate for a two-parameter, read-only, idempotent template tool. The missing enum value and the unexplained 'variant' keep it from being complete, but the gaps are narrow rather than structural.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does so poorly: the archetype list it gives ('case, book, object, vessel') omits the schema's 'vehicle' value, so the description is inconsistent with the enum. The 'variant' parameter is never explained at all — an agent has no idea what values are legal or what the parameter does.

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 identifies the resource as 'a parameter document to fill in for an archetype ... and variant', which tells the agent roughly what comes back, but it never uses a verb (generate/return/fetch) and never contrasts itself with near-neighbours such as construct_expand_params or hologram_template. An agent can guess the purpose from the name plus text but cannot confidently separate it from sibling template/expand tools.

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 simple path for models that struggle with full scenes' implies when to prefer this over scene-based construction, which is real guidance, but no alternative tool is named and there are no explicit exclusions. 'Without arguments: every archetype' gives one usage condition (call with no args to get everything) but not the conditions for narrowing to a single archetype/variant.

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