template_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe, account-scoped read of built-in templates, but says nothing about return shape, whether template IDs are stable, ordering, or pagination. It is enough to know this is a read, but not enough to know what you get back.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary scope first and the disambiguation second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information about results, yet it never describes what a template entry contains or how these templates are consumed by document_render/document_render_stored. For a simple catalog call this is adequate but leaves a real gap an agent would care about.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters whose semantics need explaining. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing misleading about inputs because there are none.

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 states a specific resource (built-in templates available to every account) and implicitly the list operation, which the name confirms. It cleanly separates this from the custom-design case, although the sibling it names (`list_custom_templates`) does not appear in the supplied sibling list, which slightly weakens the routing signal.

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 gives clear usage context: use this for built-in templates, use the other tool for your own designs. There is no explicit when-not guidance or follow-on step (e.g., feed these IDs into document_render), but for a zero-parameter catalog tool the selection guidance is essentially complete.

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