list_visual_templates

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

With no annotations providing read-only or side-effect hints, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool lists an official catalog, returns usage rules with T# IDs, and behaves differently based on the query parameter. It does not go further to describe matching behavior, ordering, or whether any 'rules' are embedded in the returned data, but the core read-oriented behavior is reasonably clear.

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 two concise sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and uses an example to clarify parameter usage. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields, and every phrase adds value.

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 list-with-optional-filter tool, the description covers the tool's purpose, the optional query, and the empty-query behavior. The presence of an output schema compensates for not describing the return structure. Minor ambiguity remains about what 'content type' means and how T# IDs are used, but as a whole it is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. The 'query' parameter is given semantics: it optionally filters by content type, with the example 'annuncio corso', and empty returns the full catalog. This is meaningful beyond the raw string schema. It could be slightly stronger, but it sufficiently explains the one parameter.

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 a specific action, 'List the official visual template catalog', with a resource and an explicit mention of what makes these templates usable: the T# IDs. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling tools search_guidelines or get_post_examples, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the verb and resource are unambiguous.

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 explains when the query parameter is useful and that an empty query returns the full catalog, which provides practical guidance for using the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as search_guidelines or get_post_examples, so the usage context remains partially implied.

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