goodnotes_list_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts beyond that: results are tied to a pre-existing "current size/color filter" (hidden state dependency) and the return includes "page-order guards," which is valuable since no output schema exists. It remains silent on pagination, error behavior, and why a read operation carries readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences with the operation stated first and the return behavior second; nothing is padded out. The jargon "page-order guards" is dense but informative rather than wasteful.

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 three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the required url argument is unexplained, and the size/color filter is referenced but never described or linked to a parameter. It does cover the return shape, which is the main compensating strength.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: "one page" loosely maps to the page parameter and "paper/cover" maps to the kind enum. The required url parameter is never mentioned, nor are valid values, defaults, or the "size/color filter" the tool apparently depends on, so nearly half the parameter surface is undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Read native paper/cover templates," which clearly distinguishes this from generic listing siblings like goodnotes_list_pages. The phrase "for one page" sets scope, though "using the current size/color filter" references ambient state that is never defined, leaving the exact selection basis slightly opaque.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage signal is the implicit "for one page," which hints at single-page scope but leaves an agent guessing how this differs from other list tools.

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