treeflow_list_message_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add a useful scoping claim: it returns ALL message templates and rich responses configured for the bot, not a filtered subset. However, it doesn't disclose authentication needs, behavior for invalid tree_id, or pagination/return shape. For a simple read-only list operation the burden is moderate, and the scope claim adds real value.

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?

A single, front-loaded Spanish sentence with zero fluff. The verb comes first and every word contributes either the resource type or the scope. It matches the schema's language, keeping the definition coherent.

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 low-complexity tool (1 required parameter, no enum, no output schema, no nested objects), the description plus schema together give an agent enough to call it correctly: what it returns and the required input. The only minor gaps are return format and pagination details, which are less critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — tree_id is already documented as 'ID del bot/árbol' in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline 3 without needing compensation.

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?

Identifies a specific operation ('Lista' – list all) and a specific resource (message templates and rich responses) scoped to a Treeflow bot. Among many list_* siblings (list_branches, list_trees, list_intents, list_entities), this clearly targets message templates, and the verb distinguishes it from create/update/delete_message_template.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The description never states when to choose this over related query tools (e.g., get_tree, list_branches) nor how it relates to the create/update/delete_message_template siblings. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name.

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