get_template_files

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details: it excludes metadata.json and reference-only PDFs and specifies encoding for binary assets. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, potential errors, or any side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 concise and well-structured, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose and a short follow-up for exclusions and encoding. No extraneous information is included.

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 return format and special handling of files, but it lacks context about error conditions, the meaning of 'reference-only PDFs', and parameter details. Given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete but leaves some gaps.

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 parameter names (template_id and user_library_dir) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on their meaning or how they affect the returned files. With no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description adds little explanatory value beyond the names.

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 clearly states the tool returns a mapping of filenames to content for a new paper project, which is a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_templates, but the purpose is 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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_templates or read_resource. It only describes what it returns, not the conditions or contexts in which it should be chosen.

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