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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that the operation is a read-only list, returns metadata only, is paginated, and has specific owner-filter semantics including the default 'all' behavior. The note 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/templates' reinforces the non-mutating, list-oriented behavior.

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 compact but information-dense: three sentences cover purpose, scope, return nature, pagination, owner modes, filters, and the equivalent API endpoint. Every clause contributes useful guidance, with the most important behavioral constraint ('Metadata only') placed early.

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 read-only list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what is listed, who can see it, what is returned, how filtering works, the default owner mode, and pagination. The only minor omission is explicit guidance about when to switch to get_template for full DSL bodies, but the metadata-only statement and sibling list make this reasonably inferable.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate for missing parameter semantics. It adds meaning for q (free-text over name and description), tags (comma-separated and ANDed), owner (all three enum values with default behavior), and category. It mentions pagination but does not explicitly describe how limit and offset behave beyond what the schema already shows via defaults and constraints.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List templates visible to the caller', and further defines the two included scopes (library templates and the caller's saved templates). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'Metadata only (no DSL bodies)', so an agent can tell it apart from get_template, delete_template, and render tools without needing to open their schemas.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: listing visible templates, filtering by owner, category, tags, and free-text q, with pagination. It does not explicitly name an alternative like 'use get_template when you need the DSL body,' but the 'Metadata only (no DSL bodies)' note implicitly communicates when this tool is not appropriate, and sibling names help fill the gap.

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