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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: templates are grouped by category rather than returned as a flat list, the return shape is provided, and the description notes the absence of build configuration. This clarifies what the tool actually returns and how it behaves.

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 every sentence earns its place: it covers scope, sibling distinction, grouping behavior, return shape, and routing to related tools. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses structure effectively rather than padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly states the return structure: {categories: {<category>: [{id, title, type, blocksCount, image, icon, createdAt, riddle, isPublic}]}, total}. It also covers how to discover categories and when to use sibling tools, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema already documents the parameters. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that 'category' and 'type' narrow results and that omitting both reveals available categories, which is useful semantic context not visible from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Riddle's public templates'), and immediately distinguishes it from sibling riddle_template_list with 'as opposed to... own ones'. It also clarifies the relation to riddle_template_get and riddle_template_use, so an agent can tell exactly which tool is which.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call without arguments to discover categories, use 'category' and 'type' to narrow, and choose riddle_template_get for build configuration or riddle_template_use for a template id. It clearly contrasts public templates versus account-specific ones, making the selection context unambiguous.

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