get_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that the tool fetches a list, implying read-only behavior. It does not disclose pagination behavior, the client-scoping implied by the required client_slug, or anything about the response, even though no output schema exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical example adds meaning by grounding what 'templates' refers to, and every element earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only behavioral source, but it stops at purpose. It omits pagination semantics, why client_slug is required, and what the return value looks like — gaps that matter for a list tool an agent must invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is only 33% (client_slug), and page/limit have no descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions none of the three parameters, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap — an agent is left to infer that results are client-scoped and paginated.

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 a specific verb ('Busca') and resource ('lista de modelos de chat (templates)'), and clarifies the domain with the example of approved WhatsApp messages (waba). The resource is distinct from siblings like create_template, update_template, and delete_template, though it does not explicitly contrast with other list-getters such as get_catalogs.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites beyond what the schema's required field implies. The tool name and description make the purpose obvious, but an agent gets no help deciding between get_templates and related listing tools like get_catalogs.

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