List smart prompt templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a set of curated templates with their accepted fields, and that the same templates are reachable through the MCP prompts/list API, which is meaningful behavioral context. It is a side-effect-free listing by implication, though it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or result size.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and purposeful: the first defines the resource and its contents, the second defines the usage path. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 lister with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what comes back (templates plus their fields) and how to use them. It could add a note on the result shape or ordering, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing to interpret and the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter discussion and instead explains how the returned template ids/fields are consumed downstream.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (nanobanana-mcp's curated prompt templates), and scopes the content to photography, design, and editing with the fields each template accepts. It also names the sibling render_template, so an agent can distinguish this discovery tool from the rendering tool without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly describes the workflow: use this to list templates, then pass a template id and its fields to render_template, or reach the same templates via the MCP prompts/list API. It routes the agent to the right follow-up tool but does not state exclusions or when this listing should be skipped (e.g., if templates are already cached).

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