get_outline_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it returns a list of templates, but does not mention idempotency, whether it requires authentication, or any caching behavior. Given no parameters, the tool is straightforward, but transparency is minimal.

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 with three sentences, front-loading the purpose in both languages. The 'Returns:' line adds structure but is redundant given the output schema. Overall, it earns its place without being verbose.

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 zero parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple list tool. It could mention ordering or that no filtering is available, but it adequately conveys the function.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description does not detract from but also does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 (get/list) and resource (outline templates) in both Chinese and English, specifying it returns all supported review outline templates. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_full_template_v1 which uses templates to compose, not list.

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 a simple read-only listing tool with no parameters, suggesting it is for exploring available templates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like generate_review_outline_data_v1 or compose_full_template_v1. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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