sb_templates

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds context that these are 'saved' templates, implying a listing of pre-existing sections. It does not contradict the annotation, and it provides a small amount of extra context beyond what the annotation conveys, but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as return format, pagination, or filtering.

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 concise (two sentences) but not well-structured for an action-oriented tool. The first sentence is a noun-phrase definition, not an imperative or verb-led description, so the primary purpose is not front-loaded. The second sentence directs to a sibling, which is useful but does not clarify the tool's own action. It is efficient but structurally weak.

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 tool with no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how the site_id parameter affects results, or any other usage details. An agent cannot know what to expect from the call or how to interpret the response. The description is inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 one parameter (site_id) with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its purpose (likely identifying the site). With zero coverage, the description is expected to compensate, but it fails to do so, making this a critical gap.

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 identifies the resource as 'the store's saved section templates' and distinguishes it from sb_template_use by stating that the sibling is for applying them. However, it never states the actual operation (e.g., 'list', 'get', 'browse'), leaving the agent to infer that this tool retrieves or lists templates. The purpose is clear in context but not explicit, so it does not fully meet the standard of a specific verb+resource.

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 mentions sb_template_use as an alternative for applying a template, but it does not state when to use this tool itself. There is no explicit guidance such as 'use this to view available templates before applying' or any conditions or prerequisites. The implied usage (to see templates) is not clearly articulated, so the guidance is minimal.

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