get-project-template-list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses key behavioral traits: URL pattern recognition for parameter extraction, compact response format (id and templateName only), detailed pagination behavior (defaults, maximums, usage examples), and the purpose/benefit of templates. This goes well beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with clear sections (URL Pattern Recognition, Note, Pagination, Examples) and front-loaded core purpose. While somewhat lengthy, every sentence adds value—no waste. It could be slightly more concise in the final explanatory paragraph.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details, parameter semantics with examples, and response format. For a read-only list tool, this is comprehensive and leaves no significant gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains how to derive projectId from URLs, provides concrete examples of parameter combinations, and clarifies pagination logic (e.g., 'if totalCount > size'). This enhances understanding but doesn't fully explain all edge cases.

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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'all available templates in a project', specifying it's about 'project task templates' with 'predefined title and body content'. It distinguishes from siblings like get-project-template (singular) by emphasizing it retrieves a list of all templates, not a specific one.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to get templates for a project, with URL pattern recognition guidance for extracting projectId. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the context is sufficiently clear for typical usage.

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