get_default_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description goes beyond that with non-obvious access context: it needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set with a restart, and start_login will NOT unlock it. That auth-disclosure is genuinely useful and not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the access caveat is isolated in its own labeled paragraph. No filler, though the second paragraph is slightly long for a single prerequisite.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and access prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; only an explicit sibling comparison would push it higher.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing param-related the description needs to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all default message templates') and defines what 'default' means ('built-in templates a project sends when it has no custom template of its own'). This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like list_templates and get_template, though it never names them.

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 'when it has no custom template' clause implies the motivating condition, and the access note clarifies the prerequisite. However, it never explicitly contrasts with list_templates/get_template to tell the agent which to call for custom vs. built-in templates.

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