list_templates

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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive safety, so the description adds value by disclosing the slim response fields, the fact that templates feed both hosting and migration, and the important sourceLabel nuance when repository names collide. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and response shape, and every subsequent sentence adds actionable guidance about get_template, reuse, creation, and user choice. It is dense but each clause earns its place.

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 list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how to get more detail, how the results should influence the next action, and how to handle ambiguous repository scenarios.

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 has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and instead focuses on outputs and decision workflow.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List available templates', and immediately distinguishes itself from the related get_template tool by noting the slim response shape versus full details. It also places templates in the broader hosting and migration workflow, so an agent can tell exactly what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use get_template for full details with config variables, and use list_source_repositories when needing to resolve a repository. It also prescribes the decision procedure for reuse versus creation and when to ask the user, which is strong usage direction.

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