list_document_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scoping to document types but no additional behavioral details such as pagination or return format, which is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

With one clear parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose for a simple list operation. It could mention the scope of templates (e.g., all templates vs. filtered), but the openWorldHint and straightforward nature make it sufficient.

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 single parameter document_type is defined by an enum in the schema, and the description restates the allowed values ('quotes or invoices') in natural language. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, as the agent can map the parameter to the intended document types.

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 specifies a clear resource (MakeLeaps templates) and action (取得=get), scoped to quotes or invoices. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on clients and document creation, not template retrieval.

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 the tool is for retrieving templates for quote or invoice documents, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but no sibling tool offers template retrieval, so the purpose alone signals the appropriate situation.

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