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. While it implies a read-only operation ('List'), it doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and value. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second explains what templates are and their use case. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key details.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral details like response format or usage context. With no output schema, the agent must infer return values, making this description incomplete for optimal tool selection.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('search' and 'limit') with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List' and resource 'reusable document templates', and explains what templates contain ('pre-placed fields') and their purpose ('used to quickly create envelopes'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_from_template' or 'list_envelopes', which would require a 5.

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 when to use 'list_templates' instead of 'list_envelopes' or 'create_from_template', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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