Email Templates List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the HTTP verb/path, the required OAuth scope (read_email_templates), and the API version (2025-03), which the agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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?

Four short lines, each carrying distinct information: purpose, endpoint, scope, and version, then return shape. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the response-shape line could be trimmed if an output schema existed.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description discloses the response envelope (count, page, per_page, total, has_more, next_page, items), which is the key missing piece. Scope and API version round out what an agent needs to call this correctly.

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 page, per_page, fields, and response_format are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 transactional email templates'), which is unambiguous against siblings like tiendanube_email_templates_get and _update. It does not explicitly name those siblings or differentiate the retrieval granularity, keeping it just below a 5.

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 implied by the 'list' verb and the pagination parameters, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus tiendanube_email_templates_get or _update. Required scope is given, which is useful context but not usage guidance.

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