List Scaffold Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context, only restating that it returns template names and descriptions. No additional details on pagination, filtering, or system behavior are provided, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 brief and front-loaded, but it contains redundancy: the opening sentence already mentions template descriptions, and the 'Returns' section repeats that information. The example adds useful context, but a slightly tighter structure would be ideal.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it states what the tool lists (templates) and what it returns (names and descriptions). It could optionally mention how this relates to sibling scaffolding tools, but that is not necessary for a simple list operation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description has no parameter information to add, and because there are no parameters, no compensation is needed. The baseline score reflects this effectively.

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 states the tool lists all available built-in project templates, using the specific verb 'List' plus a well-defined resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like scaffold_from_template or scaffold_create_project by focusing purely on listing rather than creating or modifying.

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 clear usage context with example user queries ('What templates are available?' or 'Show me the templates'). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the examples adequately convey when this tool is appropriate.

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