list_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List .cs templates' conveys the read-only listing behavior, but it does not describe what information is returned, whether the skillId filter affects results, or any ordering/format details. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 compact and information-dense, with the WHEN condition and HOW workflow front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant framing or filler.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the workflow context is useful and mostly sufficient. It lacks an explicit statement about return contents or the optional filter, but the intended use and follow-up action are clear.

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 schema already documents skillId with 'Filter templates by skill' at 100% coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or add extra meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses specific language: 'list .cs templates' and positions it as the first step in a template→validate→fix workflow. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_template, which retrieves a specific template rather than listing available ones.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('about to write UdonSharp') and a concrete workflow ('then get_template for the closest match and adapt it'). It does not discuss when not to use the tool or compare it to other siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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