list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool 'List all pre-built scenario templates', which implies a read-only operation, and mentions the content categories. However, it does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, nor describe what happens with an empty template list or how the output is structured. It adds some value but lacks full transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every phrase adds value: 'all' indicating scope, 'pre-built scenario templates' the resource, and the parenthetical specifics. No wasted words.

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, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed and what additional information is included. It does not mention output format or ordering, but given the simplicity, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the output includes ('inputs, defaults, outputs', 'custom-scenario format', 'period labels'), which is useful context. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('all pre-built scenario templates'), and differentiates from siblings by specifying that it includes 'inputs, defaults, outputs' plus the 'custom-scenario format and period labels.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that stands apart from run_scenario or sensitivity_analysis.

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 implies the tool is for discovering available templates and the custom-scenario format, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before running a scenario) or provide exclusions. Some context is given, but no clear usage directives.

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