ghl_email_builder_template_get

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds behavioral details: endpoint method (GET), required API version header (2021-07-28), OAuth scopes, and pagination mechanics (limit, offset). This enriches the agent's understanding of how the tool operates. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with five sentences that each add value. It front-loads the legacy context, then covers endpoint, scopes, and pagination. No redundant or verbose language.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, legacy context, endpoint, auth, and pagination. However, it omits explanations for most parameters and does not describe the return format, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains locationId implicitly and pagination parameters (limit, offset). The other 9 parameters (name, search, archived, originId, parentId, sortByDate, templatesOnly, builderVersion) are not described. The agent would have no guidance on their semantics beyond default values.

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 it fetches email templates from a legacy API, explicitly distinguishing it from the v3 template family. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'email templates' are specific, and the legacy context differentiates it from sibling tools like ghl_email_template_get.

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 explicitly contrasts this legacy API with the v3 template family, noting they are not interchangeable. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (legacy builder templates) versus alternatives. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the distinction implies the exclusion.

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