expand_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the Qiita Team restriction but doesn't describe what 'expand' actually does operationally - whether it's a read-only transformation, creates something new, modifies existing data, or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear basic functionality. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the core action first more explicitly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'expand' means operationally, what the output looks like, whether this is a transformation or creation operation, or what happens to the expanded result. The Qiita Team restriction is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description mentions 'body and tags' but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Expand template variables') and the target resources ('body and tags'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_template' or 'update_template' - it only mentions the Qiita Team restriction rather than explaining how this differs from other template-related operations.

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 provides minimal guidance with 'Qiita Team only' indicating a platform restriction, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_template' or 'update_template'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or what makes this tool distinct from other template operations in the sibling list.

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