peach_get_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns error if template doesn't exist, or what the output format is. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves data. It doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., template details, error responses), behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects, or how it fits into broader workflows. For a get operation with rich sibling tools, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, with the parameter 'id' documented as 'The template ID or template_name'. The description adds marginal value by echoing that it retrieves 'by its ID or template name', but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific WhatsApp template'), specifying it retrieves by ID or name. It distinguishes from siblings like peach_list_templates (which lists multiple) and peach_create_template (which creates), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like peach_list_templates for browsing or peach_get_event_status for status checks. The description implies usage by stating what it does, but offers no contextual decision-making help.

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