list_social_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar for the description is lower. The description does add return-content detail (seven layouts, canvas size, languages, required photo inputs) that is valuable given there is no output schema, but it never says the result is static reference data or how those fields map to the sibling creation tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, verb first. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter listing tool, though the unexplained "CP" costs some clarity that brevity does not compensate for.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-format information, and it does enumerate the returned fields. It remains incomplete in that "CP" is undefined and there is no hint about how the listed layouts, canvas sizes and required photo inputs connect to the creation and validation tools an agent would call next.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description's implicit claim that the full catalog is returned with no filtering is consistent with the empty input 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 uses a specific verb ("List") and enumerates the returned items (layouts, canvas size, languages, required photo inputs), which identifies it as a metadata/discovery tool. However, "CP layouts" is an unexplained acronym, and nothing distinguishes this reference-listing tool from siblings such as create_social_post or qa_social_layout beyond the bare verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling names (create_social_post, validate_social_post, qa_social_layout) that this should be called first to learn valid layouts and required photo inputs.

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