cat_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation ('获取列表'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't specify whether it returns all templates or has pagination, what format the output takes, or any authentication/permission requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sections: purpose statement and parameter documentation. No wasted words or redundant information. The structure with a clear header and bullet point for parameters is effective, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter information. However, without annotations and with behavioral gaps (no output format, no pagination/limiting details), it's only minimally adequate. The presence of many sibling tools (especially other cat_* commands and template_* operations) suggests more contextual guidance would be helpful.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter 'name' as optional and indicates it's for filtering by template name. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only shows name is a string with default null), this adds meaningful semantic context. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (exact match? partial match?), which limits its utility for parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose as '获取索引模板列表' (Get index template list), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from other cat_* tools by focusing on templates rather than aliases, indices, nodes, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from template_get (which might retrieve a single template) or template_create/delete (which modify 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use cat_templates versus template_get (for single template retrieval) or other cat_* commands for different resource types. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for listing templates.

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