List Templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one real behavioral trait — only published templates are returned — which is useful context not in the schema. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination behavior, or whether a total count is returned.

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, zero filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the filter capability second. Nothing repeats the name/title verbatim in a wasteful way.

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?

With 7 optional params fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call the tool. The only minor gap is return-shape/pagination expectations, which the schema's page/per_page defaults largely imply.

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 all seven parameters (paging, sort, order, three filters) are already documented with defaults and match semantics. The description's summary of the three filter dimensions adds a light orientation layer but no 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List all published templates") and narrows scope to published items, which distinguishes it from get-template/update-template on unpublished drafts. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 description implies the obvious usage (browse the template collection with optional filters) but never states when to prefer this over get-template or how to reach unpublished templates. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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