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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and clearly states that it lists templates or returns full source, implying no destructive behavior. It adds useful context about the template type and source exposure, though it does not mention potential output size or permissions.

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, focused sentence that efficiently conveys both capabilities and optional filters. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context about what actions are available and what the 'show' action returns. It does not describe the list output format in detail, but the purpose is clear and the parameter schema fills most remaining gaps.

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 all parameters with clear descriptions, and the tool description restates the action-based filtering and show behavior. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds moderate context but does not significantly deepen parameter meaning beyond what is already provided.

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 resource as workspace Twig templates and states the two supported actions: listing and showing full source. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from template-write or other read tools, but the action set and resource are specific enough.

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 explains filtering and the show action, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as template-write or other read tools. There is no explicit 'use this for read-only operations' guidance in the description itself.

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