agent_template_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well here: it explains de-duplication by frontmatter name, the source field, and most importantly documents the default COMPACT projection including the concrete size figures (32,480 chars) and the grouped repetition problem. This gives real behavioral richness beyond what any structured field could provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then layers specifics in order of importance: sources+precedence, de-duplication identity, source field, and finally the compact projection rationale. Every sentence earns its place, and the concrete char count justifies why the default was chosen. No fluff or repetition.

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 listing tool with a single param and an output schema present, this description is unusually complete. It covers resolution semantics, ordering precedence, de-duplication behavior, the default projection tradeoff, and corrects a likely misreading of 'compact'. The output schema handles return structure, and the description handles all behavioral nuance.

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 coverage is 100% and the fields parameter is self-describing with its compact/all split documented. However, the description adds significant value by explaining the DEFAULT behavior ('compact - trimmed, NOT missing fields'), correcting a likely misinterpretation that compact omits fields. This disambiguation is genuinely useful beyond 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 starts with a specific verb+resource statement ('List every Agent template CC can actually resolve') and goes further to explain the exact scope: which three sources are scanned, the precedence order, and de-duplication logic. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like meeting_template_list and agent_list by focusing on resolution behavior and the subagent_type acceptance match.

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 explains what the tool resolves (templates that subagent_type will accept) and the precedence semantics, giving strong contextual guidance on how results should be interpreted. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like agent_template_recommend, leaving the usage boundaries slightly implicit.

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