List the team's canned responses

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the canned responses contain approved wording, tone, legal caveats, and escalation phrasing, which explains the tool's value. It also discloses the dual behavior depending on folder_id presence. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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, using two short paragraphs. It front-loads the key purpose in the first sentence, then provides actionable usage guidance and parameter behavior. Every sentence 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?

Given the tool's simple interface (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description covers the essential details: what is listed, when to use it, and how the parameter affects results. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no schema descriptions, the description compensates by explaining the folder_id parameter's meaning: 'Pass a folder_id to list its responses, or omit it to see the folders.' This adds functional semantics beyond the schema's integer type, though it does not specify the expected value beyond the parameter name.

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 what the tool does: it lists the team's canned responses, organized by folder. It distinguishes from siblings like freshdesk_get_canned_response by focusing on listing vs retrieving a single response, and the folder_id guidance further clarifies 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?

The description explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Reach for this before inventing a phrasing' and explains the purpose of using approved wording. It also provides conditional usage for folder_id, which serves as guidance on when to pass the parameter. While it doesn't name sibling tools directly, it gives clear context and an implicit alternative.

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