spidra_get_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description earns credit for adding what they don't cover: the tool is 'Free', and the returned object carries input semantics (key, required, defaults) plus columns and limits. It still doesn't say whether an unknown slug errors or what the response shape looks like.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the returned payload and puts the secondary details (input keys, required vs default) in a parenthetical. It is dense but every clause carries information; the trailing 'Free.' is terse but purposeful.

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, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing returns: inputs, columns, and limits. 'Its limits in plain words' is a little vague about what those limits are, which is the one gap for a metadata-introspection tool.

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?

With schema coverage at 100% and the single slug parameter already documented with an example, the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no note about the slug format beyond what the schema provides, so this lands at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get what a template needs and what it returns') and enumerates the payload (inputs, columns, limits), which is clearly distinct from the listing sibling spidra_find_templates and the execution sibling spidra_run_template. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, though, so an agent must infer the detail-vs-list split.

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?

It establishes the workflow context by saying inputs are sent by 'key' to spidra_run_template and that 'required' ones must be set while others have defaults, which tells the agent to consult this before running a template. It stops short of an explicit 'call this first / do not call for execution' statement.

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