list_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('Array of template objects with name, description, and builtin flag'), which is helpful, but lacks details on potential errors, pagination, or performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits). It adequately describes core behavior but misses advanced operational context.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, returns), using bold headings for readability. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return format. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the template object structure (e.g., field types), though the current level is sufficient for basic use.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there is no need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 specific action ('List') and resource ('available carousel design templates'), explicitly distinguishing scope ('built-in + user brand kits'). It differentiates from siblings like create_carousel (creation) and create_template (template management), making the 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 provides explicit guidance with a dedicated 'When to call' section, specifying timing ('Before creating a carousel') and rationale ('to check if the user has custom brand templates'). It includes an alternative suggestion ('suggest using their branded design instead of the default'), clearly guiding usage relative to other tools.

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