sch_list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation through the verb 'List' and by contrasting with the later 'add' step. It also explains what a template is (pre-wired subcircuit blueprint) and gives examples, which helps set expectations. It does not explicitly state 'this does not modify the schematic,' but the wording makes that clear enough.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence states the action, one defines the resource, and one provides the follow-up workflow. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy is present.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what templates are, provides examples, and gives the next steps. The output schema handles return-value details, so the description does not need to enumerate them. It fully covers the tool's role in the larger template instantiation workflow.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and its focus on the tool's purpose is appropriate. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and this description meets that.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List all available reference subcircuit templates.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sch_get_template_info (which retrieves details for one template) and sch_instantiate_template (which adds a template). It also gives concrete examples of template types, reinforcing the resource scope.

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 names the intended workflow: call sch_get_template_info() for details, then sch_instantiate_template() to add. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool—as the initial discovery step—and which alternatives follow. It also implicitly says when not to use it: when you already know the specific template and need details or instantiation.

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