get-stl-sms-template

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation safe and non-mutating. The description adds the auth scope 'stl:read' and the HTTP method, which is useful, but it does not mention error cases, response shape, or rate limits. This is adequate for a simple read fetch but not rich behavioral context.

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 focused sentence that states the action, the resource, the endpoint, and the required scope. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only fetch with a readOnlyHint annotation and clear sibling differentiation, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what the response contains, but for a GET-by-id resource this is usually inferable, and the existing scope and endpoint details cover the essential context.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'id' as 'Template id.' with proper constraints. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 has a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('STL SMS template'), and an explicit REST endpoint. It clearly distinguishes a single-entity fetch from the sibling list operation 'list-stl-sms-templates'.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a template id and need a single STL SMS template. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-by-id semantics and sibling list tool make the intended usage obvious.

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