list_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own. It clearly implies a read-only listing operation and describes the kind of data returned, but it omits details like response shape, ordering, pagination, or authentication expectations. The absence of these is a moderate gap for a no-annotation tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides a concise workflow showing how this tool connects to its siblings.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and how to proceed. It could be slightly stronger by noting whether the list is exhaustive or filterable and by describing the output structure, especially since no output schema exists, but the core information an agent needs is present.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema leaves nothing to explain. The description adds value by clarifying what the returned list will contain, satisfying the baseline of 4 for parameterless tools.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('LoopGantt's industry project templates') and states the key returned information (task counts and typical durations). It also differentiates itself from siblings by showing this is the discovery step before get_template and create_gantt.

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 clearly places the tool in a workflow: list templates, fetch one with get_template, adapt it, then create_gantt. It names the related sibling tools and gives practical context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it against schedule_project.

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