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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filtering criterion (active, non-deleted), the return payload fields (name, format, size, creation date), and the critical auth scoping rule (users via web app or sk_ key see only their own; organizations via lce_ key see theirs). Gaps remain: pagination, ordering, size limits, and error behavior are not described.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the return value, then usage guidance, then scoping detail. No wasted words, and each sentence adds relevant information, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 1 optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers return fields, scoping, and usage. The main omission is pagination/result-size behavior and the authorization parameter's expected form.

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?

One optional parameter 'authorization' has 0% schema description coverage. The description partially compensates by explaining how the authenticated entity (web app/sk_ key vs lce_ key) scopes results—effectively the parameter's impact—but does not explain its expected format or how to supply it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('active (non-deleted) templates'), enumerates the returned metadata fields, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like delete_user_template by describing a read/list operation. It also separates templates from documents, which are covered by list_documents.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to show the AI what reusable document structures are available for drafting new documents,' giving clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g., use delete_user_template for removal).

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