get_template

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already known. The description adds useful domain context about the fetched field ids being used as keys at issuance time, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose the response format, error behavior, or any other side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate because the description adds limited but valuable 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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides essential workflow context. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly effective.

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 single-parameter read-only fetch operation, the description is reasonably complete. It states what it does, why to use it, and what the returned data is useful for. No output schema exists, but the description hints at the response content (field ids). It does not cover error cases or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple fetch. Overall, an agent has enough 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for templateId with a description 'Template id.' The description does not add any new parameter-specific details such as format, constraints, or examples. It does indirectly explain why templateId matters (to fetch the template with its field ids), but this is not parameter-specific. Per the calibration baseline, schema coverage is high so a 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 'Fetch a single template by id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from list_templates (fetching all) and other get_* tools by focusing on a single template. It also explains the practical purpose: inspecting field ids before issuing passes, which adds specificity.

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 gives explicit context: 'Use this to inspect existing field ids (rows, linkRows, header) before issuing passes'. This tells an agent when to use the tool. It does not name alternative tools (like list_templates) but clearly implies a workflow. The guidance is specific and actionable, though it could have explicitly stated not to use this for listing all templates.

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