kopern_list_templates

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral information: 'No LLM cost' and the exact return fields. This provides context beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes key details in parentheses. No wasted words; every part adds value.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields, counts, and behavior (no cost). It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with a well-described enum parameter. The description adds context by mapping the enum values to actual counts (general, vertical), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides parameter meaning.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List', the resource 'templates', and provides specific counts (37 total, 28 general, 9 vertical) and return fields (slug, title, domain, tagline). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like 'kopern_list_agents' or 'kopern_list_sessions'.

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 implies usage for viewing available templates, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context of zero LLM cost hints at safe usage, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools or selection criteria.

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