List service templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds non-obvious context — that templates only write registry entries and never install or start third-party applications — which reassures the agent about the blast radius of the template mechanism. The clause describes templates in general rather than this listing call specifically, which is mildly ambiguous but not contradictory.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The second sentence packs usage guidance and a behavioral caveat into one clause chain, which is slightly dense but still readable.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, use case, and the side-effect profile of templates. The only real gap is how listed templates relate to template_plan and template_apply, which an agent must infer from names.

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 no syntax or format information the description needs to supply. Baseline 4 applies since the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the built-in service templates,' which clearly marks it as the read-only enumeration of templates. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like template_apply or template_plan, but the naming makes the split inferable.

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?

'Use this to offer the user a ready-made private stack' states the concrete situation in which to reach for this tool, which is more than implied usage. It stops short of naming alternatives (template_plan/template_apply) or any when-not condition.

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