ashby_list_email_templates

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the API permission requirement ('hiringProcessMetadataRead') and the response format (templates[] with id and name). This goes beyond annotations and is useful for the agent to know side effects and constraints.

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 concise, with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by usage, permission, and response. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 parameters, a readOnly annotation, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, why you'd use it, the required permission, and the response structure. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. The baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary info.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'email templates', and specifies their purpose 'for rejection/archive emails'. It also explicitly ties the tool to its sibling ashby_archive_application, distinguishing it from other list tools like ashby_list_jobs.

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?

It gives a specific usage scenario: 'Use this to find the template ID to pass to ashby_archive_application when sending a rejection email.' This tells the agent when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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