get_experiment_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key safety trait ('Always safe to call; never writes anything') plus the shape of the result (full record with body, metadata, steps). It stops short of noting anything about auth requirements or error behavior for a missing/invalid ID, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what it fetches, what it returns, and how it relates to alternatives. Front-loaded with the purpose and free of filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, and the description still sketches the record contents. For a one-parameter read tool with sibling routing spelled out, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and the single property is a bare integer titled 'Id', so the description must compensate. It does by specifying 'numeric ID' and implying it identifies an existing template, which is more than the schema conveys, though it adds no format constraints or failure modes.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (elabFTW experiment template) and scoping detail (single, by numeric ID). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_experiment_templates and create_experiment_from_template, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Names the two relevant alternatives and the condition that selects each: list_experiment_templates to discover IDs, create_experiment_from_template to instantiate one. This leaves nothing to inference about when to use this tool versus its neighbors.

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