Workbooks List Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it auto-paginates to the last page, so the caller must not re-fetch, and it explains what the resulting nextPage/hasMore fields mean. That auto-pagination disclosure is the key non-obvious trait.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one short sentence, followed by the pagination semantics. The second sentence is dense with backticked field names but every clause carries information; only minor noise from the formatting.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it explains the aggregated return shape and pagination behavior an agent needs to interpret results. The one gap is failing to position the tool against sibling template-listing tools.

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 coverage for the sole parameter is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines 'limit' as the page size and clarifies that all pages are still read regardless. It could be clearer that limit does not cap total results, but the essential meaning is conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('all templates in the organization'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as workbooks_list_shared_templates or workbooks_get_template, leaving ambiguity about which list to call.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer the difference between this and workbooks_list_shared_templates on its own.

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