elba_templates

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavior. It implies a read-only lookup list of templates, which is the key behavioral hint, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, auth/organization scoping, or whether templates are per-organization — all of which matter in an API where sibling tools are org-scoped.

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?

A single short sentence: resource first, then the actionable purpose of its output. Nothing redundant, nothing that could be cut.

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?

The tool is trivial and has an output schema, so the description only needs to establish what the data is and why to fetch it — both covered. A brief note that the result is an unfiltered template catalog for the current organization would close the remaining 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description instead documents the semantics of the returned template id and where it is consumed.

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?

Names the resource precisely (document templates: invoices, acts, contracts) and pairs it with its downstream consumers, so an agent can tell it apart from elba_create_bill / elba_create_act. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'list/returns', so the enumerating nature is implied rather than stated.

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 pointer to 'id for template_id in elba_create_bill and elba_create_act' gives a concrete trigger: call this before creating a bill or act that needs a template. No exclusion or edge cases (e.g. what to do with no templates, or whether defaults exist) are given.

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