list_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context about included packs (e.g., bank-ready variants) but fails to mention what the tool returns, whether it is a read-only operation, or any constraints or side effects. This leaves significant gaps.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope. The reference to 'FormaCV’s integration pages' adds extra context but is somewhat tangential and may not be essential for tool invocation, keeping it slightly off a perfect score.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main contextual aspects: what is discovered, filter dimensions, and categories. It does not explicitly state the return value, but the tool name 'list_templates' implies a list, so completeness is adequate though not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description meaningfully explains the filter parameters: it interprets 'user', 'branch', and 'client' as scoping dimensions, and maps 'category' to the enum values (standard, compliance, anonymized). This adds semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: discovering agency templates with specific scoping (client, branch, user) and categories (standard, compliance, anonymized). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_integrations and format_cv, which target different resources.

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 implies usage for discovering templates when you need to filter by client, branch, or user, and category. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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