list_templatesList free and Marketplace legal templates from Docracy (NDAs, contractor agreements, offer letters, etc.). Optional text filter. Returns slugs and prepare URLs — does not create or send documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional filter (e.g. nda, freelancer, offer letter). Omit to list popular templates. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states the tool returns slugs and prepare URLs, and explicitly says it does not create or send documents. This is meaningful transparency beyond the schema and prevents the agent from treating it as a write action.
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?
Two short sentences that front-load the tool's purpose and immediately follow with the optional filter and return behavior. No fluff, no repetition of schema details, and every sentence adds value.
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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what results to expect (slugs and prepare URLs), the available content (free and Marketplace templates), and the safety profile (creates or sends nothing). No critical gap remains.
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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the query parameter with examples. The description adds only a slight reminder to omit the query to list popular templates, but it does not materially extend the schema's meaning. It is adequately covered but not enriched.
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 and resource: 'List free and Marketplace legal templates from Docracy,' with concrete examples like NDAs and offer letters. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not create or send documents, and the output is only slugs and prepare URLs.
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 clearly indicates when the tool is appropriate: browse or search templates with an optional text query, and omit query to list popular templates. It does not name alternatives like draft_from_template or get_template, but it clarifies this tool is read-only, providing enough context to avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are largely distinct: list_templates and get_template cover browsing/fetching templates, draft_from_template starts a drafting workflow, and check_status looks up signing status. There is slight overlap between get_template and draft_from_template since both return prepare URLs and drafting hints, but their core purposes remain separable.
All tool names follow a clear snake_case verb-object pattern: check_status, draft_from_template, get_template, and list_templates. The singular/plural template names are natural, and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Four tools is a well-scoped size for a template drafting and status assistant. Each tool serves a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The set covers the main template browsing, arbitrary drafting, and status-checking workflow, and explicitly signals when human action is required. The only notable gap is the lack of an API-driven send-for-signature action, but the descriptions deliberately leave that to the human user.