get_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about how template IDs determine available fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or return format. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words or redundant 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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It states the purpose and the significance of the output. However, since there is no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about returning a list of templates, but the verb 'Get' implies this adequately.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter project_id, including a description that cross-references get_projects. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('test case templates') scoped to a project. It also explains the significance of template IDs, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_case_fields, so it lacks 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?

The description implies the tool is used to obtain template IDs before creating/updating test cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema description for project_id provides a helpful cross-reference to get_projects, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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