List templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds a real environmental prerequisite ('Needs macOS + the app') plus the downstream purpose of the returned names, which annotations cannot express. It stops short of describing output shape or ordering, but the output schema covers that.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the noun scope before prerequisites and routing. Minor redundancy in re-listing the app values already present in the schema, but 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 one-parameter, read-only enumeration tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what it lists, the required environment, and exactly which create-path to pair it with.

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% and the single parameter's enum-like values are documented in the schema itself. The description's '(app: numbers | pages | keynote)' merely restates that, adding no syntax or constraint beyond it. Baseline 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?

States precisely what is enumerated: built-in templates for Numbers/Pages and themes for Keynote, with the app discriminator named inline. It distinguishes itself from the lookalike sibling keynote_list_themes and from iwork_apply_design/iwork_create_from_template by scoping to built-in assets.

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 explicit sequencing ('Use before iwork_create to get valid template or theme names') and an explicit exclusion ('Not needed for iwork_create_from_template, which copies the user's own file'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated, with the alternative named.

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