get_share_template_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only behavior (getting info), output fields (status, contents, remark, audit_reason), and prerequisite. It does not contradict any annotations (none present). Lacks explicit statement that it does not modify data, but it's strongly implied.

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 well-structured with bolded prerequisites, important notes, and bullet-pointed use cases. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Front-loading of prerequisites helps agent prioritize.

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 lists key return fields (status, contents, remark, audit_reason) and provides context on when to use each aspect. It also covers the prerequisite and relationship with sibling tools, making it complete for a query 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?

Schema has 100% coverage for 3 parameters. Description adds meaningful context: template_code is required and used as templateId in client API; app_id and developer_id are optional and auto-filled. This provides value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific share template by template_code'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_share_templates by focusing on a single template's details.

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite (app must be selected, referencing get_current_app_info), provides clear when-to-use scenarios (check audit status, get template_code details, view audit reason, verify approval), and advises when to use sibling tool list_share_templates first if template_code is unclear.

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