get_available_mogrts

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the list is limited to built-in templates (so user-imported MOGRTs won't appear), but says nothing about the return shape, whether returned identifiers are what add_mogrt_to_timeline expects, or whether listing is side-effect free.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and terminated with the use case. No waste, though it is lean to the point of omitting the workflow linkage.

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-param listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves key questions open: what a returned entry contains and how the result connects to add_mogrt_to_timeline or get_mogrt_properties.

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 there is nothing to document; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the call is unfiltered and global.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('built-in MOGRT text templates') with the target use case ('captions and titles'). It is distinguishable from siblings like import_mogrt, get_mogrt_properties, or add_mogrt_to_timeline, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before add_mogrt_to_timeline or import_mogrt, but nothing states when to use this versus inspecting MOGRT properties or in-project templates. No alternatives or prerequisites are given.

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