Get Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the dual lookup mechanism ('by ID or alias') which is a useful behavioral detail, but it does not disclose error behavior, such as what happens when the template is not found. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description provides minimal but non-redundant 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word contributes meaning ('Fetch a single template's full details by ID or alias.'), with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has a simple single-parameter schema, an output schema (so return format is not needed), and robust annotations. The description fully covers the operational need: fetching a single template by identifier. It is complete for the tool's complexity and context.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (template_id_or_alias) with a description that exactly matches the tool description ('Numeric template ID or alias'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and identifies the resource ('single template') with a clear scope ('full details by ID or alias'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_templates (which lists all) and create_template/edit_template/delete_template (which mutate). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a single template's full details, as opposed to listing templates or performing mutations. It clearly contrasts with list_templates, but does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or state 'use this instead of X'. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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