itkdev_get_template_files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and 'would be installed' usefully signals this is a non-mutating preview rather than an install. That said, it does not state whether the template must exist locally, whether it fetches remotely, or what happens on an unknown template name.

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 tight sentence with the key qualifier 'would be installed' front-loaded; nothing is wasted and it is immediately scannable.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: how files are returned, whether nested paths appear, and how it differs from itkdev_get_template_content are all unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'template' parameter is already fully documented with examples (drupal-11, symfony-6, drupal-module). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (files installed by a template), with the qualifying scope 'would be installed' making the read-only preview nature clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like itkdev_get_template_content, which the agent must infer is different by name alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — use it to see a template's file manifest — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer itkdev_get_template_content or itkdev_compare_project, and no stated prerequisites.

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