List email templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic context beyond that: the field inventory, the [Tracking #] placeholder convention in the HTML body, and the meaning of the 'default' marker as the template applied to new labels. It says nothing about ordering or pagination, but with a zero-parameter collection endpoint that is a minor omission.

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 first line ('subject, sender, HTML body; one is the default') is essentially restated by the second line's fuller field list, so roughly a sentence of the two is redundant. The content is front-loaded and bounded, but the duplication costs it.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so by enumerating name, subject, sender name, reply-to email, BCC address, HTML body and the default flag. For a no-parameter list tool with full annotation coverage this is close to complete; only ordering/paging behavior is unaddressed.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the returned shape, which is the right allocation here.

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 names the resource precisely (the tracking email templates Pirate Ship sends to label recipients) and enumerates the fields each record carries, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It never states the verb 'list' outright — that comes only from the title — and it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like get_tracking_email_settings or create_email_template, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('templates ... used for new labels'), which tells the agent these are the records backing tracking-email configuration. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to create_email_template / update_email_template / delete_email_template as alternatives for the mutation paths.

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