ncloud_mailer_get_template

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the legacy status, time limit, and the API endpoint. It does not describe response format, errors, or pagination, but for a simple read operation with a schema and annotation, the added context is modest. It does not contradict annotations.

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 but includes a long legacy note that appears before the core action. The action is not front-loaded; the reader must wade through the legacy context first. It is still concise (~30 words) but could be structured better by stating the action first, then the limitations.

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 GET tool with 2 parameters (one required), a full schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It provides legacy availability, a deprecation timeline, and points to modern alternatives. It does not describe the return format, but since there is no output schema and the operation is straightforward, the missing detail is minor.

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 100%, and the input schema already documents both parameters (region and templateSid) with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies; no extra value is added.

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 action: 'Get one mail template (GET /template/{templateSid})'. The verb and resource are specific, and the HTTP endpoint is provided. It also differentiates from new SENS APIs by noting legacy status and alternatives for sending/lookup. It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like ncloud_mailer_get_template_structure.

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 explicit usage constraints: 'available only to projects migrated from Cloud Outbound Mailer and only for ~12 months' and points to new alternatives (ncloud_sens_send_mail / ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this vs. other template-related siblings (e.g., ncloud_mailer_get_template_structure), but the legacy context and purpose make the usage clear enough.

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