interpretation_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses the verb 'Return', which implies a safe read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or list any side effects. It does add context about the template being shared + per-skill and the intended usage phase, which is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 that immediately states the action and resource. Every word contributes value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the basic purpose and usage timing. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned template or any edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when 'skill' is omitted). It is minimally sufficient but leaves some ambiguity.

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 schema has one parameter with an enum but no description (0% schema description coverage). The description partially compensates by mentioning 'shared + per-skill', which hints that the 'skill' parameter selects between shared and skill-specific templates. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameter name, default behavior, or value meanings beyond what the enum provides. Adequate but with a gap.

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 ('Return') and a clear resource ('interpretation template'). It also clarifies a key distinction by mentioning 'shared + per-skill', which differentiates this tool from the sibling casting/drawing tools. It fully states what the tool does.

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 gives clear usage context: 'before writing an interpretation'. This implies the tool is used as a prerequisite for interpretation-writing. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks exclusions. Overall, the timing is clearly stated.

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