get_conditional_logic_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 states the tool 'Get's templates, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it doesn't contradict any 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides relevant examples. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. It could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the parameter's role, but it's concise and clear.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or output format, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly. The examples help but don't compensate for the missing contextual information.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'templateType' fully documented including its enum values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing example scenarios that partially overlap with the enum (e.g., 'progressive_disclosure', 'skip logic' vs 'simple_skip', 'branching_survey'). However, it doesn't explain parameter usage or semantics in depth, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'pre-built conditional logic templates', specifying what the tool does. It provides examples of common scenarios (progressive disclosure, skip logic, branching surveys), which helps distinguish it from siblings like 'create_conditional_logic_block' or 'validate_form_logic_flow'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_tally_form_templates', which might also involve templates.

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 mentions 'common scenarios' but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose this over other template-related tools like 'get_tally_form_templates'. The context is implied through the examples, but lacks clear usage rules or comparisons to sibling tools.

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