list_chat_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces read-only and adds that it returns template objects as provided by Kommo. It also clarifies the server's limitation (cannot send templates). This adds useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover rate limits or pagination.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, safety, return format, and limitation/alternative. No wasted 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?

For a parameterless, read-only list tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains what it returns and its limitation. The only missing piece is potential pagination or result size, but given no output schema and the simplicity, this is minor. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to parameterize. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description correctly indicates no filtering or input is needed.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List the account's chat message templates.' The description also distinguishes itself from sibling send_chat_message by stating this server only lists and cannot send. An agent can immediately understand the tool's function and boundaries.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is read-only and cannot send templates, pointing to send_chat_message as the alternative for sending. It clarifies when to use this tool (to list) versus the sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use beyond that, but the context is clear.

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