browse_overleaf_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. It only states it returns JSON with a list and pagination info, but does not mention whether it's read-only, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. Given it's a browse operation, the description is minimally transparent.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 browse tool with 2 optional parameters and an output schema described, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, and return format. It is complete enough for agent invocation, though it could benefit from more detail on potential tag values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'tag' as a gallery category with examples (cv, cover-letter, etc.) and 'page' as a 1-indexed page number. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's defaults, though it could be more exhaustive on the tag options.

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 'browse' and resource 'Overleaf's template gallery' to discover LaTeX templates. It distinguishes from siblings like 'fetch_overleaf_template' (likely fetches a specific template) and 'list_templates' (lists available templates?), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 examples of tag categories (cv, cover-letter, etc.) and page numbering, giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives like 'fetch_overleaf_template' for fetching a single template, missing a chance to guide the agent on tool selection.

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