qrtap_list_design_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the listed template attributes, ordering, and the ownership/logo-image constraint. It does not mention pagination, rate limiting, or whether results are complete or truncated, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the operation and ordering, then the downstream purpose and creation constraint. Every sentence adds needed context and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the templates contain and why an agent would call it. It leaves return-shape details such as pagination or whether all templates are returned unstated, which is a modest 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter behavior to explain. The description correctly implies the tool takes no filtering input.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list branded design templates) plus scope (organization-level) and ordering (newest first). Its stated purpose of obtaining a design_template_id distinguishes it clearly from write siblings such as qrtap_create_code and qrtap_create_codes_bulk.

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?

It explicitly says to use this only to get a design_template_id for qrtap_create_code or qrtap_create_codes_bulk. It also rules out creation through the server, explaining templates are created in the cabinet, which prevents an agent from looking for a create-template sibling.

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