List followup templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the clarifying gloss that these are predefined texts; it says nothing about pagination defaults, result volume, or that no filtering parameters are accepted, so it earns a baseline 3 rather than more.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and the parenthetical gloss placed where it aids comprehension. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values or side effects. For a simple read-only lister it is minimally adequate, but it omits any routing cue against the many followup-related siblings, which is the one thing an agent would still need.

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 all four parameters (range, fields, format, expand_dropdowns) documented inline, including enum meanings and defaults. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ITIL followup templates'), and the parenthetical clarifies the domain object as predefined followup texts. It does not, however, distinguish this list-templates tool from the adjacent template siblings (get/create/update) or from the plain followup listers like glpi_list_followups, leaving that separation to the tool name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name that this retrieves template definitions rather than actual followups on a ticket.

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