ghl_get_email_builder_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, pagination behavior, or any caveats. It does add useful context about the template type, which is beyond the name, but lacks detail on what the response contains or edge cases.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by relevant context. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple list with pagination), the description covers the core purpose and what type of templates are returned. However, there is no output schema and no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or return structure, which would be helpful. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 33% (only sortByDate has a description). The tool description does not mention limit, offset, or sortByDate at all, so it adds no semantic value for the parameters. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it doesn't, leaving the agent with only parameter names to infer meaning.

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 'List email marketing / builder templates for the location.' It uses a specific verb (List) + resource (email marketing/builder templates) + scope (for the location). It distinguishes from the singular sibling tool 'ghl_get_email_builder_template' and the generic 'ghl_get_templates' by specifying these are visual-editor templates used in Marketing → Emails and referenced by workflow Send Email actions.

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 context on what these templates are and where they are used, which helps an agent understand when to pick this tool over generic templates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., singular template fetch), so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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