manage_email_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action ('list') and output details ('template IDs and names'), which helps understand behavior. However, it lacks information on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read-only list tool with zero annotations, this is adequate but minimal.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose ('List Kit email templates'). The additional context about output use is relevant. It could be slightly more structured but avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and simple zero-parameter input, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and the output's utility, but lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure), error cases, or operational constraints. For a list tool, this is minimally viable but has gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is fine here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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: 'List Kit email templates' specifies the verb (list) and resource (email templates). It distinguishes from siblings like manage_broadcasts or manage_sequences by focusing on templates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The phrase 'returns template IDs and names needed for creating broadcasts' adds useful context about the output's purpose.

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 context through 'needed for creating broadcasts,' suggesting this tool provides data for another operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., if other tools also list templates) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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