List templates

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real semantic value by explaining what a record template actually contains (preset steps, notification, message, reminders, assignees). It stops short of describing pagination behavior, which the schema covers instead.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then triages the kinds with endpoints. The nested parenthetical for record templates is dense but each clause carries information, so no trimming is obvious.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the semantic context an agent needs to pick the right 'kind'. Nothing critical is missing, though it never says what the returned template objects look like or how they relate to create_record beyond the record case.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; every parameter is already documented in the schema, including paging and max_results limits. The description only marginally enriches meaning by explaining that 'enabled' yields only enabled or only disabled lists, which the schema also states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Templates on the team') and enumerates the three template kinds with their backing endpoints (GET /templates/records, /emails, /documents). An agent can immediately tell this apart from the sibling list_records/list_clients/list_webhooks tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of kinds and the enabled/disabled scoping option, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over list_records or get_record, nor any stated prerequisites. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer route selection.

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