list_gitignore_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 this is a read operation ('List') and includes HTTP response details (200 success, JSON format, example), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits that might be relevant for an agent.

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 reasonably concise but includes unnecessary formatting details (HTTP response codes, content-type, example) that might be better handled by an output schema. The core purpose is stated upfront, but the response documentation adds bulk without proportional value for tool selection. It could be more streamlined for an agent's needs.

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 (0 parameters, read-only operation, output schema provided), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and shows an example response. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, it lacks context about when to use it relative to the sibling tool, which is a minor gap.

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 is fully documented). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline expectation. No additional parameter information is provided or required, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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's purpose: 'List all available gitignore templates from gitignore.io'. It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('gitignore templates'), and source ('gitignore.io'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'generate_gitignore', which would be needed for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the sibling tool 'generate_gitignore' in the context signals, but the description itself doesn't explain the relationship (e.g., use this to see available templates before generating one). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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