panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_templates

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations by stating the HTTP endpoint and the required docker:read scope. It does not describe output shape or pagination, but this is a simple read-only catalogue endpoint and no output schema exists.

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 well-structured: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by HTTP method, category, required scope, and read-only nature. Every line conveys invocation-relevant information without unnecessary prose.

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, read-only catalogue endpoint, the description provides enough to call it correctly: the endpoint, the required scope, and the meaning of the response. It could be more complete by mentioning the sibling slug/deploy endpoints or describing the returned template objects, but overall complexity is low.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures the invocation surface. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 identifies the resource as the one-click app template catalogue and provides the explicit GET endpoint, making it clear this is a read/list operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling template endpoints like get_v1_docker_templates_slug or deploy, though 'catalogue' conveys the collection-level scope.

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 gives clear context: this is the same catalogue the panel uses, and it states the required docker:read scope, which is enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of explicit when-not guidance.

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