list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It documents pagination semantics but does not mention whether all templates are returned regardless of status, if there is any default ordering, or potential limitations. Basic read-only behavior is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 brief, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains an organized args block. It repeats information already present in the schema (default values), but the duplication is minimal and the overall structure is efficient.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential elements: purpose and both parameters. It does not explain return values (already handled by output schema) and lacks edge-case details, but for a basic list operation it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining the 'skip' and 'take' parameters with their roles and default values. This adds meaning beyond the raw integer schema and gives the agent actionable details for pagination.

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 'List all message templates' with specific channel examples, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling list_* tools by naming its resource type, though it does not explicitly cite an alternative or exclusion, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Usage is implied: you would use this when you need message templates. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, no mention of exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools that could be confused with it.

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