List document templates

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing what the tool returns (e.g., list structure, pagination), whether it is read-only, or any limits beyond the schema's maximum. The lack of any behavioral detail leaves a significant gap.

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, consisting of a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specifying rather than appropriately concise; it lacks necessary context for effective tool selection. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of informativeness.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to know what to expect. It does not mention the response format, whether results are paginated, or how to interpret the limit parameter. Given the presence of similar sibling tools, more differentiation is needed.

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% because the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter. The schema defines it as an integer with a maximum of 1000, but the description adds no meaning about how it affects results (e.g., pagination, default behavior). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not.

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 and resource: 'List document templates.' It is specific enough to indicate the action, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool gambot_list_templates, which may refer to a different type of template (e.g., WhatsApp message templates). The purpose is clear but lacks distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gambot_list_templates or gambot_get_document. The agent must infer based on naming, which is not reliable. There are no mentions of exclusions or prerequisites.

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