list_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds content-type context (what categories of templates exist), but says nothing about return format, size, or pagination for a list-style tool, so it adds only moderate value over the structured fields.

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 returned content front-loaded and the redirect to get_capabilities trailing. Nothing is padded, though the first sentence is a comma-spliced list that is slightly ambiguous about whether these are three distinct item types.

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 describing return values, and it does sketch three content categories. It stops short of clarifying the shape/format of those results or how they relate to the compose_* tools, leaving moderate gaps for a zero-param catalog tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this dimension defaults to 4. There is no argument syntax for the description to clarify or obscure.

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 verb 'Get' is vague, but the description enumerates three concrete things returned (composition examples, typed technical catalog, sketch styles). It never uses the word 'templates' from the tool name, so the mapping between name and content is left for the agent to infer, and it does not distinguish itself from list_drawings or the compose_* siblings.

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 second sentence routes the agent to get_capabilities (topic technical, recipe) for a complete technical design, which is useful explicit guidance. However, it gives no condition for when to prefer list_templates over the compose_* or get_format siblings, so usage is only partially implied.

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