list_mail_templates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement and 'List' makes the read-only nature apparent, but it does not cover pagination, response shape, or list-specific quirks.

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 two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it is so brief that it omits useful usage context.

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 simple list tool this is minimally adequate: the description plus schema covers the required employer_id and the raw-output option. There is no output schema, and the description does not mention pagination or what the returned templates contain, leaving a modest completeness gap.

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%: employer_id and raw are already documented in the input schema, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List employer mail templates'), which clearly conveys the operation and the employer scoping. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message_template, which is aimed at a single template.

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 intended use is implied: list all mail templates for an employer, given employer_id and access token. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as get_message_template or any exclusions, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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