sigma_list_shared_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting the safety baseline. The description adds the contextual scope (templates from other orgs) but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or return format. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but adds only modest value beyond the 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, front-loaded sentence: 'List templates shared with your organization from other orgs.' It conveys the action, subject, and scope without any redundant or unclear wording. Perfectly concise.

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 simple list operation with no parameters, an output schema, and clear annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It states what is listed and the scope, and the output schema covers return values. No additional context 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no constraints to explain. The description clarifies the semantic scope of what is being listed (shared templates from other orgs), which aids understanding. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'templates shared with your organization from other orgs.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_list_templates (which likely lists the org's own templates) and sigma_accept_shared_template. The scope is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you want to see templates shared by other organizations. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it. However, the phrasing is specific enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario.

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