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 explains the access scope, implies a read-only list operation, and describes the return fields. It omits rate limits or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is adequate transparency.

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 three sentences: purpose/scope, usage workflow, and return format. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly, even without annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuously 100% and the baseline is 4. The description adds downstream context by explaining how the returned id is used in create_session, enriching the meaning of the output beyond the schema.

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 tool lists Harmonica session templates with scope (public global templates + templates you own/access). It distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions by focusing on templates and explicitly mentions return fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says to use this tool to discover facilitation patterns and then pass the returned id to create_session. It gives a clear workflow but does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, though the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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