List Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond that: cursor-based pagination mechanics, the tags API limitation, and the critical edge case that templates uploaded with versioning disabled appear with id = null and must be addressed via versionId in tools like delete_template and download_template. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Six sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before any caveats. Each sentence carries a distinct fact—scope, filter dimensions, includeVersions behavior, pagination, tags limitation, and the null-id edge case—so there is no filler. Slightly long, but the two 'Note:' caveats convey non-obvious API behavior and earn their space.

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 an 8-parameter tool with zero required params, the description covers the essential decisions: which filters exist, how to paginate large collections, when to include versions, what the API cannot do (tag filtering), and how to identify versioning-disabled templates, including cross-tool remediation. An output schema exists, so return-value shape is covered elsewhere. The only minor gap is filter-combination semantics (e.g., whether search and category compose), which is left to inference.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description rises above that by aggregating the filter dimensions ('Filter by Template ID, Version ID, category, or upload origin'), giving usage guidance for includeVersions ('full version history of each template'), and framing limit/cursor as a strategy for large collections. It adds selection and combination context the schema's individual parameter docs do not.

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 'List stored Carbone templates with filtering, search, and pagination' — a specific verb, resource, and capability set. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_categories and list_tags by targeting templates specifically, and it elaborates the title's bare 'List Templates' with scope ('stored') and operations.

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?

Gives clear operational context: filters (Template ID, Version ID, category, origin), cursor pagination for large collections, and when to use includeVersions. It also provides an explicit exclusion—'filtering by tags is not supported by the Carbone API — use list_tags to discover tags, then filter results manually'—which routes the agent to the correct sibling. It doesn't systematically address all sibling alternatives, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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