list_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 that the tool returns 'names and descriptions,' which adds useful context about output format. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or error conditions, which are important for a list operation.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second specifies the return content and resource type. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by adding essential information.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and output semantics adequately. However, it could improve by mentioning any limitations (e.g., only built-in templates) or prerequisites, which would enhance completeness for the agent.

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 adds value by clarifying the resource scope ('built-in LaTeX resume templates'), which goes beyond the schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 specific action ('List available resume templates') and resource ('built-in LaTeX resume templates'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_template' (which retrieves a specific template) or 'list_resumes' (which lists created resumes). It precisely communicates what the tool does without redundancy.

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 by specifying 'built-in LaTeX resume templates,' suggesting this tool is for browsing available templates rather than user-created ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get_template' or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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