list_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all available templates' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List all available templates'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, with every word contributing to clarity without unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or usage context. For a basic list tool, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough information for optimal agent use without additional context.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, avoiding redundancy. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'List all available templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('templates'), with 'all available' specifying scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_template' or 'apply_template' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or application. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_notes' or 'list_tags' beyond the resource name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_notes' or 'search_vault'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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