list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source location and which file extensions are enumerated, which is useful, but says nothing about the return shape (names vs. paths), recursion, ordering, or behavior when the directory is absent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the parenthetical file types and the directory scope following. Nothing wasted.

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 simple, zero-required-parameter read tool, the description covers what is listed and where. Since there is no output schema, a brief note on the return format would have closed the last gap, but nothing essential is missing.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including its default resolution order (BAMBU_TEMPLATE_DIR, then ~/Sync/bambu/templates), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of the "local template registry directory" lightly reinforces that, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

Clear specific verb (List) plus resource (saved slicing templates), with the file types (.3mf, .json, .config) and the scope (local template registry directory) spelled out. It is readily distinguishable from the write-oriented siblings save_template and slice_with_template, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the presence of save_template/slice_with_template as siblings, but the description states no when-to-use condition, no prerequisite (e.g. registry directory must exist), and no alternative to prefer. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.

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