List runnable overseer templates

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains non-obvious behaviors: null 'desc' means the provider doesn't give descriptions (not withheld), entries with descriptions are listed first, and 'running_task_id' signals an already-running task to avoid duplicates. These are valuable behavioral details not captured in annotations.

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 intentionally dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, empty-list caveat, field semantics, ordering, and filter guidance. It avoids repeating schema content and is well-structured, though slightly long; it earns its length.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It covers the key fields (provider, desc, params, running_task_id) and their meanings, plus ordering and edge cases. It doesn't enumerate every possible field, but it gives the agent enough to understand the response and decide next steps.

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 schema documents cwd but leaves 'filter' undescribed. The description compensates by explaining that 'filter' matches a substring against name and desc and is useful for narrowing large result sets, adding meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't add detail for cwd, but that's already covered well.

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 opens with 'List task templates overseer discovers in a directory' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on templates (not tasks) and explicitly mentions overseer_run as an alternative for raw commands.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'An empty list is normal... use overseer_run with a raw cmd instead.' It also advises using the 'filter' parameter in large monorepos to handle results exceeding eighty entries, giving clear context for when to apply the filter.

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