get-template

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states this is a read operation ('reading') and enumerates the exact return fields. It does not discuss errors, permissions, or side effects, but for a simple get-by-id read, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the tool name.

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 three short, labeled sentences (Use when, Returns, Do not use when). It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids any filler, making every sentence earn its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and rich sibling context, the description covers the essential use cases, exclusions, and return data. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly among many email-related siblings.

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 sole parameter id is explained as the template's identifier, and the description explicitly warns when you don't have the id. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema field, which only specifies a string with minLength 1.

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 reads a saved template by id and lists the returned contents (name, subject, default to/cc, body). It distinguishes itself from list-templates and use-template by explicitly naming them, making its purpose 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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, including alternatives (list-templates for missing id, use-template for applying a template to a draft). This fully covers when to use the tool vs alternatives.

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