List render templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds environment-specific scope ('in this install') and positions the output as input to ae_render, but it does not describe output structure or ordering. Consistent with the calibration precedent for read-only list tools whose annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope and purpose. Every clause carries information — action, object, environment scope, and intended downstream use — with no 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 0-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what it lists, the scope, and the downstream use. The absence of an output schema leaves the exact return structure unspecified, but the description conveys that template names are returned, which is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and use its output.

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 tool has zero parameters with trivially 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value beyond the empty schema by explaining what the returned data will be used for (valid names for ae_render), helping the agent interpret the results correctly.

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 ('List') with a clearly identified resource ('render settings and output module templates available in this install'), and explains the downstream purpose ('so you can pass valid names to ae_render'). This differentiates it from sibling list tools like ae_list_comps, ae_list_fonts, and ae_list_effect_params, which target different resource types.

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 when the tool is useful — before calling ae_render, to obtain valid template names. It gives clear contextual guidance for an agent deciding between this and sibling listing tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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