list_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the tool lists templates and includes both dynamic and legacy, but it doesn't disclose how results are returned (e.g., array, pagination), whether any auth is needed, or if the operation is read-only. As a simple list operation, some low score is justified, but it doesn't go beyond what the name implies.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no wasted wording, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. This is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters.

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?

The tool is very simple (0 params, no output schema), so the description is mostly sufficient. However, since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned (e.g., an array of templates). It also omits any mention of authentication or administrative context. This is adequate for a trivial list operation but leaves a few gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% schema coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, since the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The description correctly focuses on the action and scope.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'transactional email templates' and clarifies it covers both dynamic and legacy types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_template (single template fetch) and preview_email (rendering preview). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use list_templates over get_template, preview_email, or other siblings, nor any exclusions. The scope is implied by the name and verb, but no explicit usage context is given.

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