get_whatsapp_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-only ('Obtiene'), but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it mention any auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is minimal in 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 concise (one line) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the inclusion of '[query]' at the end is unclear and may be a placeholder artifact, slightly reducing clarity. Overall, it's efficient but could be cleaner.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not fully cover what the tool returns. It fails to hint at the output structure (e.g., template details like name, body, status) and does not explicitly state this is a read operation. The description is adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps.

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 with a single parameter 'id' described as 'ID de la plantilla'. The description adds context that it is a WhatsApp message template ('plantilla de WhatsApp', 'mensaje especifica'), which clarifies the type of template, but the schema already conveys the ID concept. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Obtiene el detalle de una plantilla de mensaje especifica' (gets the detail of a specific message template). The verb 'Obtiene' and resource 'plantilla de WhatsApp' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_whatsapp_templates (which lists all templates) and delete_whatsapp_template (which deletes).

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 use for retrieving details of a single template, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_whatsapp_templates for listing all templates or update_whatsapp_template for modifications. No exclusion or context for selection is provided.

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