list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains the limit default deviation (100 vs 10) and the pagination contract via _metadata and offset/next. It does not discuss read-only guarantees or auth, but those are implicit for a list endpoint and the stated behaviors are valuable and concrete.

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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose and endpoint. The second sentence is dense but contains necessary behavioral context. No filler or repetition; it earns its length.

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 tool with no output schema, the description appropriately explains the response metadata and pagination flow, and the schema already documents all parameters. It does not explicitly state the return shape (array of template objects), but that is strongly implied by 'Lists all email templates' and the pagination discussion. Minor gap, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it explains why limit defaults to 100 (FUB max, bulk case) and how offset or the _metadata.next cursor should be used with pagination. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions for limit and offset.

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 opens with 'Lists all email templates', a specific verb and resource, and identifies the HTTP endpoint. The word 'all' establishes scope and distinguishes it from the singular get_template sibling. An agent immediately knows what the tool does.

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 for bulk requests ('bulk requests are the common case here') and gives pagination instructions, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling is referenced, so usage context is largely inferred rather than stated.

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