Listar templates de diagramas

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotation set—no mention of return format, ordering, pagination, or whether results are cached. Given strong annotations, the bar is lower, but the description contributes minimal additional behavioral context.

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?

Single-purpose, single-sentence description that is compact and front-loaded. It could arguably add a brief note about relationship to sibling tools, but as-is it is efficiently written with zero filler.

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, read-only listing tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description is sufficiently complete. It names the consuming tool (create_from_template), which is the most critical contextual link. No output schema exists, but for a listing tool the description adequately scopes the return semantic (predefined architecture patterns).

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for parameter semantics to add. Per the rubric baseline, 0 params warrants a 4. The description correctly acknowledges this by not listing any parameters.

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 clearly it returns predefined architecture patterns available for instantiation with create_from_template. Verb+resource is specific, and the cross-reference to create_from_template is helpful. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like list_icons, list_colors, list_anims, list_fonts whose names self-evidently clarify their purpose—this one relies on the 'diagram templates' meaning which is reasonably clear in the title.

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 usage (get templates to use with create_from_template), naming the dependent tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this vs alternatives, and there's no guidance on when you'd pick this over other listing tools. The relationship to create_from_template is the main anchoring guidance.

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