list_issue_templates

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds behavioral detail: 'Returns templates sorted by modification date (newest first)'. This adds value beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and resource, second adds sorting context. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with key 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?

Adequately covers the tool's function, resource type, and sorting for a simple list operation. No output schema, but description explains return ordering. Could briefly mention that a project identifier is required (though schema shows it).

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?

Schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('project' and 'limit'). Description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'list', the resource 'issue templates', and the scope 'in a Huly project'. Provides additional context on what templates are and sorting by modification date. Distinct from sibling tools like 'get_issue_template' which returns a single template.

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?

Implied usage: use when you need to list templates, with sorting behavior mentioned. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives like 'get_issue_template'. No mention of prerequisites or context for selecting this tool.

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