project_template_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It fails to state that this is a read-only listing operation, whether pagination is supported, or any side effects. The phrase 'Project templates' gives zero behavioral insight.

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 words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks a verb and essential context, making it unhelpful. A one-sentence description like 'List project templates' would be both concise and valuable; this is not.

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?

Although the input schema and output schema provide parameter and return-value detail, the description itself is extremely incomplete. It does not state the tool's core purpose (listing templates) or any behavior. The rich schema cannot compensate for a description that fails to explain what the tool does.

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 100%; all four parameters have descriptions in the schema. Per the rubric, this yields a baseline of 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter context. The description does not reference or clarify any parameter, but the schema already handles this dimension.

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 'Шаблоны проектов' ('Project templates') is a noun phrase that restates the resource without indicating any action. It does not say 'list' or 'get', making it essentially a tautology of the tool name project_template_list. There is no differentiation from sibling tools like task_template_list or contact_template_list.

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. No mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for other template types, but there is no contrasting information.

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