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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this ('this tool reads it and changes nothing'). The valuable addition beyond annotations is the access-control detail: workspace libraries are read by workspace members but not by guests, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It also describes entry contents and the fuller single-template response.

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 resource and scope, then the entry contents, then the single-item mode and next-step tools. Dense but every clause carries information; the nested parentheticals make it slightly heavy to parse but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations covering return shape, the description steps in and enumerates what each entry carries (name, subtitle, glyph, description, scope, structure summary) and what the single-template mode returns. Combined with the permission note and follow-up routing, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them. The one piece of added meaning is that `template_id` returns the template 'in full, `blueprint` included', which slightly enriches the schema wording. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Lists the model templates the caller can start from') and immediately splits the resource into its two concrete scopes, `official` and `workspace`. An agent can distinguish this from `layerz_list_models` because it explains that a template is a read-only published copy, not a model.

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?

It clearly describes when this tool is appropriate and routes the agent forward with explicit alternatives: fork via `layerz_create_model { template_id }` or apply as a module via `layerz_build_from_blueprint { template_id }`. It also explains the list-vs-single mode via `template_id`. It stops short of explicitly excluding scenarios (e.g. 'use layerz_list_models to list models, not templates'), so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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