list_message_templates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by explaining the return format and how placeholderFieldIds are parsed and should be matched. No hidden behaviors are missing, and it aligns with annotations.

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 plus a practical hint. It is front-loaded with the core action (list global templates) and efficiently covers filters, return fields, and cross-referencing. No unnecessary 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 the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes returned fields and explains how to use placeholderFieldIds. It references another tool (list_message_template_fields) for further context, making it complete for a listing tool.

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 schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds semantic detail: category accepts ID or exact name, search is case-insensitive substring. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, providing practical usage context.

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 states it lists global Huly message templates, with optional filters by category and title substring. It specifies the returned fields, distinguishing it from related tools like list_message_template_fields. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_message_template_categories, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides filter options (category ID/name, title substring) and how to use the results (match placeholderFieldIds to list_message_template_fields.id). It does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a broader listing is needed versus filtered results.

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