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. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what 'available' means (e.g., all templates, only active ones), whether it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns data.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('List available email templates') that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 simplicity (0 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. However, with no annotations to cover behavioral aspects like safety or return format, and the description not addressing these, it's incomplete. For a list operation, agents need to know what 'available' entails and the response structure, which is missing here.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and since there are none, it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps. A baseline of 4 is given as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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 'List available email templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('email templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_template' (creation) and 'list_emails' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_batches' or 'list_domains' beyond the resource name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing templates to exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_email' or 'list_emails', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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