list_templates

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that the operation is read-only, not the default sort order, not whether results are paginated or truncated, and not the default page size (the schema gives a default for 'page' but not 'per_page'). For a list endpoint with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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?

A single four-word sentence with zero padding and the resource front-loaded. It is efficiently sized, though the same brevity is what leaves the other dimensions thin.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with fully documented schema fields and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. The missing pieces, pagination limits and safety profile, are what keep it from being complete.

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%, and both parameters ('page', 'per_page') are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 outcome rather than a failure.

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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('email templates'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_template, create_template, and delete_template among the siblings. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the read sibling get_template, which keeps it out of the 5 band.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_template or create_template, and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or account scope. The agent must infer that this is the browse-all path purely from the verb 'List'.

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