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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: listing the catalog never executes an automation. This reassures the agent that the call has no side effects. No contradictions with the annotations are present.

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 concise sentences lead with the action and resource, then immediately provide the key behavioral clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with two optional, fully documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers scope, output shape, and side-effect behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to both select and invoke the tool 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 cursor and version parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific verb (list), a specific resource (workspace automation templates), and a concrete output (template ID and published/draft version status). It is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with similar sibling tools like list_journey_templates or list_tenant_templates.

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 states its intended question ('what automations already exist here') and explicitly clarifies a when-not case ('it never runs one'). It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria relative to sibling list tools.

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