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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results include connection readiness, capability defaults, and models, and by linking the output to agents_save. It does not describe pagination or filtering behavior, but it goes beyond the annotations in meaningful ways.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and key returned attributes before indicating the related save tool. Every phrase carries information.

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?

For a listing tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It gives partial context about what templates contain and their relation to agents_save, but it leaves the required workspace parameter and optional category/template filters unexplained, which is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or effect of the category, template, or workspace parameters. The parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, but the description adds no guidance on whether category/template act as filters or how workspace scopes the result.

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 identifies the resource as teammate templates and lists returned attributes (connection readiness, capability defaults, models), which makes the tool's purpose clear. It also links the templates to agents_save, but does not explicitly say 'list' or distinguish the tool from nearby siblings like agents_list or skills_list beyond that link.

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 phrase 'for agents_save' implies the templates are meant to support saving an agent, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus agents_list, skills_list, or other template-related tools, and no mention of exclusions or selection criteria.

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