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, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about what template IDs are used for, which is useful, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or authorization requirements. This is acceptable but not exceptional given the annotations.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds valuable context without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and rich annotations. The description explains what the tool returns conceptually and how the result relates to other operations. It does not describe the response shape, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, the description is largely complete.

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 fully documents project_id, including a helpful cross-reference to query_project. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. It also does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('available test case templates for a project'). It also adds meaningful domain context by explaining that template IDs determine available fields when creating/updating test cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_case_fields, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 when to use the tool by connecting template IDs to test case creation/updating, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the usage guidance mostly implied.

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