get_schematic_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds that the result is 'fresh' and that the template must be 'installed', which carries real behavioral meaning about availability and re-derivation, but it stops short of saying whether the spec is cached, regenerated, or how it is scoped.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Brevity serves it, though the same tidiness leaves no room for the routing or return-shape information the tool needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent can learn what a 'builder specification and requirements' actually contains, and it does not say. For a tool whose entire value is the shape of its return, that is a substantial omission.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden for the single `name` parameter, yet it never mentions it. Only the phrase 'installed template' indirectly implies what `name` denotes; the enum values are visible in the schema but their meaning (what the voltage_divider vs mixer template produce) is undocumented anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb (Return) and resource (builder specification and requirements for an installed template), so the retrieval intent is clear. It does not distinguish itself from list_schematic_templates or read_schematic, so an agent could confuse which of the template/schematic readers it needs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no alternative named. With siblings list_schematic_templates, read_schematic, preview_schematic and build_schematic all plausibly adjacent, the description gives the agent nothing to route on.

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