cigchat_whatsapp_template_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method and required scope, but does not disclose return format, pagination semantics, or whether the list is read-only. For a list operation, this is limited behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that state the action, endpoint, and a required auth scope. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 list endpoint with three optional parameters, the description plus schema is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of response structure or pagination details, it lacks some completeness. The presence of overlapping sibling tools also introduces ambiguity that this description does not resolve.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive names and types for all three optional parameters (name, page, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List Whatsapp templates' followed by the exact endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cigchat_list_templates or cigchat_facebook_utility_message_template_list, though 'Whatsapp templates' narrows the scope somewhat.

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 provides a concrete usage prerequisite by stating the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which is useful for selecting the tool. It does not, however, explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as listing Facebook utility templates or syncing templates, leaving usage context only implied by the name.

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