get_template_detail

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait — this is a read-only operation that does not start an editing session — which is genuinely useful and non-obvious given select_template exists. However, it does not cover authentication requirements (a login sibling exists) or the return format/pagination behavior, leaving gaps a no-annotation tool should ideally fill.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler. The primary action and version scope are front-loaded, and the differentiating view-only note comes second. Slightly more could be packed in (e.g., auth), but for its length it is well-structured and efficient.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (complete details with the three version states) and its non-mutating behavior. The lack of an output schema means return structure is uncharacterized, but the summary of returned version info partially compensates. Reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% — the single templateId parameter is already described as '模板 ID'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. Nothing more is needed for a one-parameter numeric ID.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('获取模板完整详情') with explicit scope (includes draft, current, and enabled version info). The closing note '不加载到编辑会话，仅查看' differentiates it from the sibling select_template and from list_templates/list_template_versions, which are coarser or version-specific reads. An agent can distinguish this from siblings without opening schemas.

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 phrase '不加载到编辑会话，仅查看' gives clear usage context — use this when you only need to inspect details, not when you intend to edit (which implies select_template). This is explicit enough as an implicit contrast, though it does not name select_template directly or state explicit when-not conditions beyond the view-only framing.

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