list_role_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration and hints that scope sets are returned, but says nothing about auth requirements, permissions, or whether the listing is org-scoped or paginated. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it conveys little beyond the minimum.

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 zero-param list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns (templates and their scope sets) but omits scope/auth context and result format. It is minimally viable rather than fully rounded out.

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 takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to describe, so the baseline stands.

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 (enumerate) and resource (role templates) and even names the payload dimension (scope sets). An agent can tell it lists templates rather than applying one, distinguishing it loosely from the sibling apply_role_template. No explicit sibling/alternative is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. auth, org context), and no named alternative such as apply_role_template for acting on the templates. Usage is only implied by the listing verb.

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