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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Get available templates') and repeats the scope_type effect, which is already in the schema. It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, return structure, or any read-only guarantees. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema or annotations, the description should ideally explain return values or edge cases. It clearly indicates that templates are returned and that scope_type affects the result, but it does not describe the response format, pagination, or any prerequisites like authentication. For a simple list-style tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'Scope type determines which templates are returned', which slightly reinforces the scope_type parameter, but it does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional syntax, prerequisites, or examples are given.

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 the tool 'Get available templates in a ClickUp workspace', using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('templates'). It further distinguishes from sibling tools like lists_create_from_template_in_folder by focusing on retrieval rather than creation, and clarifies the scope types (task, list, folder).

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 clear context: this tool is for fetching available templates in a workspace, and scope_type determines the category. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the distinction from sibling creation tools is implicit. It lacks exclusions or alternative tool recommendations, hence not a 5.

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