ghl_email_template_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint and OAuth scopes but does not contradict annotations. It provides some context beyond annotations, but the behavioral traits are well-covered by annotations, so the contribution is modest.

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, containing only necessary information: a clear statement of purpose, endpoint, and OAuth scopes. It is front-loaded with the key action. No unnecessary fluff. While it could be slightly more streamlined, it is still well-structured and efficient.

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 that this is a simple read-only GET operation with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, the required parameters (via schema), and the required OAuth scope. The agent can confidently invoke it. A return value description would be nice but is not essential for a well-known resource type.

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% description coverage for both parameters (locationId and templateId) with examples. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 'Get Email Template by ID' and 'Get a single email template by its ID'. The verb 'Get' is specific, and the resource 'email template' is unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ghl_email_template_list' (get all) and 'ghl_email_template_create' (create), making its purpose immediately clear.

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 provides the endpoint and OAuth scopes, implying that this tool is used when you have the specific ID of the template. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'if you need a single template by ID, use this; for all templates use list'). The clarity is good but lacks explicit guidelines.

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