list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the tool is 'Cheap, cacheable per session,' explains that results are scoped to the calling key, details the return formats for both argument modes, and warns about potential truncation with truncated_by_mcp. No behavioral contradictions.

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 fairly long but well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then uses sub-sections for different argument scenarios. While every sentence adds value, it could be slightly more compact without losing clarity. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema and the tool's dual-mode behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return shapes for both modes, parameter details, truncation warnings, and even mentions that results are per-API-key. No missing essential context for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It does so thoroughly: for name, it explains it is optional, case-insensitive, accepts id or name, and triggers a full fetch of a single template. For compact, it notes the default (true) and the behavior when false (complete entries but may be capped). This far exceeds the bare 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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List predesigned strategy templates, or fetch one in full.' It specifies the resource (strategy templates) and the two distinct modes (compact listing vs. full fetch). This differentiates it from sibling tools like run_backtest or validate_strategy, which serve different purposes.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it to discover what exists' for the no-argument case, and 'Pass name=...' to fetch a single template in full. It also advises preferring compact or name to avoid truncation. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for common use cases.

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