list_prompt_templates

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

The description discloses that it is a read-only operation and returns a list with IDs, names, and latest version info. While no annotations are provided, the description adds context about pagination parameters and the nature of the operation.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement, followed by return info and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return values. It is complete for a list operation with pagination.

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 description adds meaning to all three parameters: project_id is required, limit defaults to 50, offset defaults to 0, explaining their roles in pagination. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 it lists all prompt templates in a Freeplay project and specifies it is a read-only operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_prompt_version and get_prompt_version.

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 explains when to use the tool (to list templates) and hints at using the results for creating new versions. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives for specific template details.

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