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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds pagination mechanics and confirms no execution occurs, but says nothing about return shape, result ordering, or whether workspace_id is needed to get meaningful results.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then pagination facts, then the exclusion. No filler or restated title text.

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 and a nested, poorly documented 'query' object among five parameters, the description should say more about what templates look like and how query/brand_id shape results. It covers pagination and the run/list distinction adequately but leaves the parameter surface partially opaque.

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 60%. The description restates the limit range (1-50) and cursor-based pagination, which the schema already encodes via minimum/maximum and the cursor description. The opaque 'query' override object and 'brand_id' remain undocumented in both places, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list reusable prompt templates) and scopes it to the selected workspace. The closing sentence 'Does not run prompts' cleanly separates it from the sibling aidelly_run_prompt, so an agent can pick the right tool without inspecting 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?

Gives clear context: templates are returned 'to inspect and select before execution', implying use this list tool first and run_prompt second. It also states an explicit non-goal ('Does not run prompts'), but never names aidelly_run_prompt directly as the follow-up tool or states when-not to use this listing.

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