الگوها (صورتجلسه، نظرسنجی، وظیفه)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond that: task templates live on advanced projects, minute/poll templates on the workspace, and the returned template_id feeds the create tools. It omits return shape/pagination, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the scope statement front-loaded and the cross-tool links following. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 read-only enumeration tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, this is nearly complete: it explains scope, the project requirement, and downstream use. With no output schema, a brief note on what a template entry looks like would close the last gap.

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 100%, with the enum and the conditional requirement of project_id for kind='task' fully documented in the schema. The description only lightly reinforces this ('task templates of a project (advanced projects)'), so it does not add substantial meaning beyond structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saved templates') and then splits the scope precisely: minute/poll templates of the workspace versus task templates of a project (advanced projects). An agent can distinguish this from every list_* sibling without opening the schema, since none of them covers templates.

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?

Gives concrete downstream usage ('use a minute template with mizito_create_minute(template_id=...) and a task template with mizito_create_task(template_id=...)'), which tells the agent why it would list templates. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming an alternative listing tool for the same data, so it does not reach a 5.

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