List 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. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation)Skip plausible destructive behavior, and 'all' signals broad scope. Yet it does not disclose potential pagination, output shape, authentication requirements, or any rate limits, though these are minor for such a simple 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?

ExampleSingle sentence with no wasted words. The key components (verb, resource, scope) are front-loaded and clearly presented. Every part earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. An agent can confidently call it, knowing it returns all WhatsApp templates. Minor gaps exist around what template details are included (e.g., status, language) but these are not critical for the basic operation.

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 tool takes no parametersgit, and schema description coverage is 100% vacuously. With zero parameters, the expected baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics but provides organizational context ('WhatsApp templates') that frames the output, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('WhatsApp templates') and scope ('for the organization'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like gambot_get_template (single template) and gambot_create_template (create), establishing a distinct purpose without needing to reference them.

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 implies usage by stating it lists all templates, so an agent can infer to use this when a complete collection is needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over gambot_get_template or other template-related tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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