List Project Templates

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), and error semantics ('Failures come back as an error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). It also redundantly confirms the read-only nature stated in annotations, reinforcing safety. This provides substantial behavioral context.

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 four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, use cases, pagination/return format, safety, error handling, required parameter, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler or repetition beyond the safety note, which is acceptable. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 no output schema, the description reasonably covers the return format ('Returns a JSON array of project templates'), pagination mechanics, error cases, required parameters, and API endpoint. It does not enumerate the fields inside each template object, which could be useful, but for a list tool of this simplicity, the provided context is fairly complete. Sibling tools and the broader API context also help situate the tool.

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% coverage, with each parameter already described meaningfully (e.g., company_id is 'unique identifier for the company', page has default 1, per_page has defaults and max). The description adds only minimal extra context about pagination ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), which mostly relates to output behavior rather than parameter semantics. The schema carries the heavy lifting, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return a list of Project Templates that are available to utilize for Project creation.' It uses a specific verb ('Return a list') and resource ('Project Templates'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_types by focusing on templates used for project creation. It also explains the practical use case of discovering templates or looking up an id.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover project templates or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' This gives clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases. It effectively communicates the intended usage.

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