template_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it discloses what the call returns (the four fields) and that bodies are not included, routing the agent to artifact_read instead. Minor omission is whether the list is ordered or filtered.

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, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded before the pointer to the sibling tool. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the returned fields and clarifying the metadata/body split. Adequate for a zero-arg listing tool; only ordering or scope-of-list details are absent.

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?

Zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs are available, matching the empty 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?

Specific verb ("Lists") plus a scoped resource ("KB-only concept templates") and an enumeration of returned fields (slug, type, title, variables). The "KB-only" qualifier separates it from the generic concept_list sibling, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

"Read a template body with artifact_read" implicitly defines the boundary: this tool returns metadata only, and body retrieval goes elsewhere. Clear context for follow-up, but no explicit guidance on choosing between this and concept_list/map_list for other listing needs.

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