cor_get_project_templates

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 only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or idempotent. No details about rate limits, side effects, or required permissions are given.

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 short overall, but the 'Args' section is redundant since the input schema already defines the parameters. The first sentence is concise, but the structure includes unnecessary duplication, making it less efficient than it could be.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what project templates are, how they relate to projects, or any prerequisites. For a tool fetching templates, critical context is missing, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. However, it merely repeats parameter names and defaults from the schema without explaining their purpose in the context of project templates (e.g., what page and per_page control). No additional value is provided.

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 states 'Get available project templates', clearly indicating the verb (get) and resource (project templates). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like cor_get_project or cor_list_projects, leaving ambiguity about the scope.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, making it hard for an agent to decide contextually.

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