hologram_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful fact—the output is "synthetic," i.e., placeholder scaffolding rather than real data—but says nothing about the sheet's shape, size, or whether the result is meant to be edited and recompiled.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the terseness is efficient, though it borders on under-specification given the unexplained vocabulary.

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 no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is the only source of meaning for the two parameters and the returned sheet—and it supplies neither. For a template-generator whose whole value is the shape of what it emits, this leaves the agent guessing.

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 the parameter burden and does not. It implies "kind" selects the template flavor but never explains what cd, book, structure, or custom mean, and the optional "title" parameter (max 500 chars) is not mentioned at all.

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 verb ("Return") and a resource ("starter tessera-hologram sheet"), so the intent—generate a starting template—is inferable. However, "synthetic starter tessera-hologram sheet" is opaque jargon, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like hologram_compile or hologram_validate, which an agent would need to tell apart.

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 word "starter" hints that this is a first-step scaffolding tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (hologram_compile, hologram_validate, construct_params_template) or when to pick them instead.

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