List templates

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful scope and return-shape context: it returns templates themselves with ids, names, and subjects, not their full bodies. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but with annotations handling the safety contract this is still strong.

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 uses bold, front-loaded labels (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) and every sentence adds distinct information. There is no wasted text, and the routing information is easy to scan.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: it states the result fields, clarifies that full bodies are excluded, and gives concrete usage scenarios. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on scope and return values instead.

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 names a specific verb and resource: listing every reusable email template in the project, and specifies the returned fields (id, name, subject). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from plunk_get_template_usage, which is about where a template is used rather than the templates themselves.

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?

It states exactly when to use the tool: when you need a template id for a send, campaign, or workflow step, or when the user asks what templates exist. It also names the alternative (plunk_get_template_usage) and specifies what it is not for, so routing is unambiguous.

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