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

The annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds no additional behavioral information. It does not mention return format, ordering, or any other behavior beyond simply listing, so it offers no value beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a tool with no parameters.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description is too terse to provide sufficient context for an agent to know which templates are being listed or how they relate to the bangs filter workflow. The name provides context, but the description itself does not explain the tool's role among its many similar siblings.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the description has no parameter information to add. The schema is empty and fully covers the input space, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 clear action ('List') and resource ('predefined templates'), but it does not specify what kind of templates or how this differs from sibling template tools. The tool name provides the context, but the description itself is too generic to independently distinguish it from other template-listing tools.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the related try-on tools or other template tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases beyond the bare 'list' verb.

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