List templates

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only list returning names and descriptions, but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only nature, mention any rate limits, caching, or whether it returns all templates or a filtered set.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up action is clearly stated.

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-param list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it returns (names and descriptions) and how to use the result. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly say these are all available templates or mention any caveats.

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, so the schema is empty and requires no documentation. The description adds no param info because none exist; baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as ready-made agent roles (e.g., reviewer, implementer) and implies listing them by name and description. It also mentions the sibling herdr_run for the follow-up action, helping distinguish this discovery step from execution.

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?

It provides a clear next step: 'Run one with herdr_run argv=[name] and a task.' That implies this tool is for discovering templates, but it does not state when not to use it or contrast with siblings like herdr_list or herdr_get.

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