list_templates

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully enumerates what a returned kit contains (blocks with verbatim visual.json by type, blueprint, page settings, design tokens), but it never states that this is a read-only operation, whether it needs authentication, or any result-size/caching behavior. The content enumeration is genuine added value; the safety profile is missing.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The listing action and its data sources are front-loaded, and the second sentence compactly enumerates the payload of a kit.

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 no-argument listing tool with an output schema present, the description goes beyond the minimum by sketching the shape of a returned kit, which is what an agent needs to decide whether listing is worth it. The only real gap is the lack of positioning against distill_template/apply_template.

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 zero input parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameters, and the detail about what a kit contains is really return-value context rather than parameter guidance.

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 concrete verb ('Liệt kê') and resource ('template kit báo cáo'), and even names where the items come from (repo report-templates/ and the POWERBI_TEMPLATES_DIR env var). What it does not do is distinguish itself from the template-related siblings distill_template and apply_template, so an agent must infer the relationship.

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 only implied: an agent would reasonably read this as the discovery step before distill_template or apply_template, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or which sibling to use for the adjacent jobs. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.

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