superchat_list_templates

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are limited to one page and templates expose approval status and positional variables, which matters given there is no output schema. It does not detail cursor mechanics, but the schema already documents those.

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 front-load the core action and follow with the key use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with no required parameters, the description plus complete parameter schema is mostly sufficient. With no output schema, naming approval status and positional variables partially fills the return-value gap; an explicit note about pagination cursors in results would make it fully complete.

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 baseline is 3 and the description does not need to re-explain parameters. It mentions channel_id and type as filters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'List one page of message templates', naming the action and resource precisely and adding the pagination scope. This is distinguishable from the sibling get_template and other list_* tools because it targets templates as a pageable collection.

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?

It gives a clear intended workflow: filter by channel_id or template type, then inspect approval status and positional variables before sending. It does not explicitly name excluded cases or the get_template alternative for single-template lookup, so it falls short of a 5.

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