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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the exact return shape, the fact that build configuration is omitted, that quick-create templates are included, and that there is no alternative filtering mechanism for them.

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 information-dense but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then distinguishes from the public-list sibling, clarifies quick-create inclusion, mentions filtering, and gives the return shape. Every sentence contributes uniquely, and the length is justified by the tool's integration with several related tools.

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, so the description compensates by stating the exact return shape and explicitly noting what is absent (build configuration). It also covers both parameters, the public/private distinction, the quick-create edge case, and the natural next actions, making the tool fully understandable in context.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% descriptive coverage, including the valid type values and projectId scoping behavior. The description reinforces the type filter and project scope, but does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the operation as listing templates, explicitly scopes it to the user's own project/personal templates, and distinguishes it from riddleTemplate_publicList. It also mentions sibling tools (riddleTemplate_create, riddleTemplate_get, riddleTemplate_use) where relevant, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus riddleTemplate_publicList, explains that quick-create templates are included with no separate listing path, and provides concrete follow-up guidance: use riddleTemplate_get for build configuration or riddleTemplate_use to create directly. This is model-level guidance rather than vague context.

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