get_default_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important access requirements: a Proof account, setting PROOF_API_KEY, restarting the server, and calling the tool again. It also clarifies a potential misunderstanding by stating start_login does not open this tool. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the simple 'get' action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clearly labeled access note. The access paragraph is necessary and not overly verbose, though it could be tightened slightly. Overall it earns its place without padding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what it returns ('all default message templates') and the required setup. It could mention the return format or list items, but the simplicity of the tool makes that a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it correctly focuses on purpose and access instead.

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 opens with 'Get all default message templates', which is a specific verb plus resource, and immediately clarifies these are 'built-in templates used when no custom template is set.' This distinguishes them from custom/managed templates among the many template-related sibling tools, even without naming a sibling.

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 clearly states when this tool is relevant: retrieving built-in default templates when no custom template is set. It also provides operational guidance about needing a Proof account, setting PROOF_API_KEY, restarting the server, and explicitly notes that start_login does not open this tool. It does not explicitly compare against list_templates or get_template, but the 'default vs custom' framing supplies enough context.

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