blender_msfs_livery_get_aircraft_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It accurately indicates a read-only list operation but does not mention return format, whether the list is static or queried live, or any prerequisites. This is adequate for a trivial getter but not richly transparent.

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?

One succinct sentence front-loads the action and resource, with parenthetical examples. There is no redundant or filler content.

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-argument listing tool the description is mostly complete, but it could connect the result to downstream siblings (get_template_info, download_template) and clarify the output shape since there is no output schema. Minor gap only.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema. The examples in the description give some context about what the returned list will contain.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get list of supported aircraft templates') and gives concrete examples ('FBW A32NX, Fenix, PMDG, iniBuilds'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling template tools like get_template_info and download_template, which operate on a single template.

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 intended use (enumerate available aircraft templates before selecting one) is implied but not stated explicitly. The description does not name the related livery template tools or explain when this list should be fetched instead of get_template_info or download_template.

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