sym_templates

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 discloses that videoPrompt is truncated by default and can be made full with 'full:true', and that useCase 1 is the default list. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, or side effects. It covers some behavioral aspects but not comprehensively enough for a tool with no annotation support.

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 dense sentence that packs multiple facts (count, fields, truncation, useCase, query) without fluff. It is somewhat dense, but efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It earns points for being concise while conveying substantial 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves gaps: it doesn't explain page/limit semantics, industryId values, or the structure of the returned list. It gives enough to start, but not enough to call it correctly in all contexts, especially when compared to richer sibling tools.

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 description coverage is only 17% (only 'full' has a description), so the description must compensate. It explains 'useCase' values and that 'query' filters by text, but it does not explain 'page', 'limit', or 'industryId'. This partial compensation is useful but leaves several parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning TikTok trend templates with metadata like name, description, use cases, industry, and videoPrompt. It specifies the default useCase (1) and default list behavior, so an agent understands it as a list endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'sym_template' (singular), leaving some ambiguity about when to use which.

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 some context on useCase values (1 for viral ads, 8 for Create page) and mentions query text filtering, but it does not state when to prefer this over sibling tools like sym_template, sym_generate, or sym_editor. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing guidance, which is a significant gap given the large sibling list.

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