List templates

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the operation is read-only, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds context about the returned fields (kind mapping to file types), which is mildly useful but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, ordering, or rate limits. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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 a single sentence that directly states the purpose and scope. It front-loads the core action and provides essential field details without any fluff. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 list operation with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a sense of what is returned but omits key contextual details such as pagination, sorting, filtering behavior, or any limitations (e.g., max results). While the tool is simple, more specifics would help an agent know what to expect when calling it. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 25% (only 'q' has a description). The description adds meaning for the 'kind' parameter by mapping values to file types (docx for Word, pptx for PowerPoint), which goes beyond the schema enum. However, it does not explain 'tag', 'engine', or clarify the 'q' parameter beyond its schema description. With low coverage, the description only partially compensates, leaving most parameters semantically thin.

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 verb (list) and resource (templates) with specific details about returned fields (slug, kind, engine, published version). It scopes to the workspace of the API key, which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_template_schema or render, so it misses the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or point to other tools for specific use cases. The only context is the workspace scoping, which is more about data scope than usage selection. This is essentially no usage guidance.

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