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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: quick-create templates are included, results are not paginated, 'total' is just a count, and the returned items carry no build configuration. Nothing contradicts 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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusion. The middle sections about quick-create and return shape are a bit long, yet each sentence earns its place. Slight trimming could tighten it, but it is well structured.

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, the description fully covers the return shape ({items, total}), the non-pagination behavior, and how to retrieve full configuration. It also clarifies that total is just a count, covering all an agent needs to call and interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that 'type' filters by Riddle type and does not add extra semantics for projectId or value ranges 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the templates of a project (or your personal ones)'. It immediately contrasts with riddle_template_public_list, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening 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?

It explicitly states what this tool is NOT for ('NOT Riddle's public ones, which riddle_template_public_list returns') and notes that quick-create templates are included with no separate listing. It also routes follow-up reads to riddle_template_get or riddle_template_use, making the decision path clear.

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