list_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful scoping (official, long-form, packed with connector), which tells the agent the tool will not return custom or short-form templates. It does not disclose response format or pagination, but given the strong annotations, this is acceptable.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and clearly scopes the resource. No filler, no redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could explicitly mention what the returned list contains (e.g., template IDs or names) or point to get_template for detailed retrieval, but the current wording is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the sibling context.

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 and the input schema is an empty object. There is no parameter information for the description to add beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description's focus on scope rather than parameters is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every official long-form template packed with this connector'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_template (which likely fetches a single template) and list_forums/list_case_types (different resource types). An agent can immediately understand the tool's scope.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need an enumeration of all official long-form templates shipped with the connector. However, the description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as get_template for fetching a specific template, nor does it state exclusions (e.g., non-long-form or custom templates). Usage is clear but not actively guided.

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