get_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('gets') with no mention of side effects, but fails to disclose required permissions, idempotency, or whether the returned structure includes all details. Lacks explicit safety guarantees beyond the verb choice.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It is concise but could benefit from separate sentences for the return value details. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions 'slide-by-slide layout and content hints' but does not specify the format (e.g., list of slides with fields). The tool complexity is moderate, and more detail would help agents anticipate output.

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% for the single parameter. The schema already provides examples of valid template names. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets the full structure of a specific presentation template with slide-by-slide layout and content hints. It specifies the resource ('presentation template') and the outcome ('full structure'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_templates and get_full_presentation_content.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on when to choose get_template over list_templates or other exploration tools. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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