accelo_list_object_budget_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the domain concept of templates but discloses nothing about safety profile, rate limits, auth requirements, defaults applied server-side, or return behavior; only the 'List' verb implies read-only.

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?

Front-loads purpose in the first sentence, then a definition sentence, then a compact Args block. No filler; the only mild inefficiency is the slightly cryptic filter-key shorthand.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the resource is, all four parameters, and pagination semantics. It could say more about the return shape (list vs. paginated envelope) but is otherwise adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning: filters keys (id, order_by_asc/desc), fields as additional return fields, page as 0-indexed, and limit capped at 100. The 'order_by_asc/desc (id)' phrasing is terse but conveys sort intent the schema lacks entirely.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List object budget templates from Accelo') and a follow-up sentence explaining what a budget template actually is, which helps distinguish it from siblings like accelo_list_object_budgets. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of how this differs from listing object budgets or when an agent should pick this tool over the closely-named budget/material/service siblings.

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