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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: result ordering (built-in gallery first, then workspace templates), the id formats, and the per-item attributes (task count, length in days).

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 dense sentences with no filler: identity and ordering first, item contents second, and the follow-on action last. Everything is front-loaded and each clause 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing what each returned entry contains (id, task count, length in days) and how ids are shaped. Only pagination or result-size behavior is unaddressed, a minor gap for a small list tool.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents "lang" including its default and enum-like values. The description doesn't mention language at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema here; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("List project templates") and immediately distinguishes two sub-populations: the built-in gallery with "builtin:…" ids and this workspace's saved templates with numeric ids. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 routes downstream consumption to create_project_from_template ("Use an id with create_project_from_template"), which is the main follow-on action. It lacks an explicit when-not clause or mention of the sibling save_project_as_template for creating templates, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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