List templates

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds useful output content (parties and merge fields), but it does not mention pagination behavior, how results are ordered, or what openWorldHint might mean for completeness.

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 one compact sentence that conveys scope, response contents, and purpose with no unnecessary words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list operation with optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context: what is returned and why it matters. Explicit pagination details are absent, but the schema's offset and max_results parameters make that gap minor.

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 describes offset but not max_results, and the description does not explain either parameter. The parameter names and defaults are reasonably self-explanatory, so this is usable, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies that this tool lists templates on the account and what they contain: parties and merge fields. It also gives the practical purpose of knowing what a send from each template requires. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_template or other siblings, but the plural 'templates' and account scope make the resource type clear.

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 phrase 'so you know what a send from each template needs' gives a concrete context for when to call this tool. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead, though the use case is reasonably clear.

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