Get Template Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only 'view' operation and describes returned contract components, but does not state permission requirements, whether the operation is safe, or any rate/caching behavior. For a metadata retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and enumerates the returned contract components without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and it does name the main return components (I/O schemas, DAG overview). However, it omits usage guidance and parameter semantics, leaving enough gaps that the definition is only minimally viable for an agent deciding when and how to call it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter template_id, and the description does not mention or explain it at all. The parameter name is self-evident enough to avoid a score of 1, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already exposes.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '查看模板的契约' (view a template's contract), and enumerates what the contract includes (input/output JSON Schema, DAG overview). This clearly distinguishes it from list_templates and run_template in meaning, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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 says what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus list_templates or run_template. There are no preconditions, no when-not-to-use notes, and no mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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