ralph_list_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. It mentions that templates are 'pre-built prompts and configurations' with 'suggested settings and external tools,' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the format of the returned list. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose. The bulleted list of template categories adds useful context without being verbose, and the final sentence about template contents is relevant. However, the bulleted list could be slightly condensed, and some sentences (e.g., 'And more...') are filler.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, template identifiers), behavioral aspects like error handling, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a list tool in a server with many related tools, more contextual guidance is needed.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with one optional parameter 'category' described as 'Filter by category (optional).' The description lists example categories (e.g., 'REST API development'), which implicitly relates to the 'category' parameter but doesn't explain its usage or semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'List all available Ralph loop templates' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Ralph loop templates'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ralph_get_template' (which retrieves a specific template) by emphasizing 'all available' templates. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'ralph_list_tools', which might list tools rather than 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions templates include 'suggested settings and external tools,' but doesn't specify scenarios for using this list tool over others like 'ralph_get_template' for detailed info or 'ralph_loop' to apply templates. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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