get_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get all templates' but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or if it returns an error for invalid project IDs. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or result format, and does not guide usage relative to siblings. While concise, it fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to scope templates to a project, but does not provide additional context like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get all templates for a project' clearly states the action (get) and resource (templates), with context (for a project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sections' or 'get_suites' by specifying templates, but does not explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_case_fields' or 'get_configs' that might also retrieve project-related data. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid project ID, or exclusions, like whether it retrieves only active templates. With many sibling tools for retrieving various project entities, this lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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