list_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it reads the registry directly instead of relying on the CLI output, indicating a read-only operation. It does not discuss error cases or environment prerequisites, but for a zero-parameter list tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence explains the workaround and references a GitHub issue, which is slightly tangential for an agent but not wasteful. Overall compact 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?

For a tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it lists and why it exists. It implies the return is the list of templates but does not explicitly state the return type or format. Given the simplicity and sibling context, the gap is minor.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds relevant context about the CLI limitation and the registry read, which is more than enough for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Batch templates available for new_project, registered and local.' It identifies what the tool lists and for which project type, and the resource type (templates) distinguishes it from sibling list tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 context by noting that the CLI command 'cellpy new --list' prints the templates and returns nothing, so this tool reads the registry directly. This implies usage when programmatic access to the template list is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how to choose among sibling list tools.

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