Get image template

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that provider scopes, locks and credits apply, which signals auth requirements and a credit cost associated with the call.

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?

Three short clauses, endpoint front-loaded, no filler or repetition. The 'provider scopes, locks and credits apply' clause is somewhat boilerplate but carries real cost/auth information.

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 simple single-resource read with no output schema, an agent still lacks any indication of the returned object's shape or error behavior. Annotations plus description cover safety and auth, but the definition stops at minimum viable.

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 50%: the 'account' param is documented in the schema, while 'uid' is only constrained (pattern, length) without prose. The description surfaces uid's role indirectly through the path template but adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already encodes. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource via the endpoint 'GET /v5/image_templates/{uid}', making it clearly the single-record fetch in the image_template family (vs list_image_templates, create/update/delete_image_template). It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the '{uid}' path and family naming make the distinction inferable.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer usage purely from the HTTP verb and sibling naming.

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