list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety and side effects. 'List' and 'available' imply a read-only operation and the triggers clarify purpose, but the text never explicitly states that it does not modify state or what the response contains. This is adequate but leaves some behavior implicit.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact, scannable trigger list and a useful handoff to create_from_template. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers what it does, when to invoke it, examples of the expected workflow items, and the follow-up action. There is no output schema, but the return concept (a list of template names) is self-evident and well supported by the workflow examples.

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 the baseline is 4 and there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema already exhaustively covers the empty parameter set.

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 available session templates') and clarifies the domain ('Pre-built plans for common research patterns'). It also points to create_from_template as the next step, which implicitly distinguishes listing from creating and from get_template.

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?

It provides explicit AUTOMATIC TRIGGERS covering the main call contexts: new session planning, explicit template requests, and recommended workflows. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with get_template, so it falls short of a full 5.

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