pipedrive_list_project_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which fully cover the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds only 'Returns paginated results,' which is already evident from the parameters. No additional behavioral context (e.g., rate limits, authorization needs) is provided. Thus, the description adds minimal 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 achieves its purpose in two concise sentences with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary function ('List all project templates') and follows with a secondary detail about pagination. Every sentence is necessary 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's low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the action and pagination but does not mention what fields are returned or any filtering capabilities. For a list tool, this might be acceptable, but more detail would improve confidence for an AI agent.

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 for both parameters ('cursor' and 'limit'), so the schema already explains their meanings. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameters; it merely reiterates pagination. Therefore, the description meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('List all project templates') and the resource ('in Pipedrive'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'pipedrive_get_project_template' (single template retrieval) or 'pipedrive_list_projects' (lists projects, not 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 implies usage for listing templates but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pipedrive_get_project_template' for a specific template. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided. The mention of pagination offers some guidance for handling large results.

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