List Templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication of whether results are paginated, ordered, or scoped to a workspace, and no permission requirements. "List" implies a read-only operation, but that is inferred rather than stated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it earns its place but is thin enough that it leaves obvious questions unanswered. Efficient in form, minimal in 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?

This is a simple zero-required-parameter listing tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema that covers return values, so the description need not explain them. What is missing is only the bridge to apply_template, keeping it below a 5.

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 100% and the category parameter's allowed values are fully enumerated in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no extra meaning about filtering behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List available prompt templates") and adds the domain (image generation), so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling apply_template, which is the main reason 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as apply_template, list_history, or list_available_models, nor any mention of what to do with the returned templates. The only implicit cue is "available," which merely hints at a browsing use case.

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