vtex_list_email_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all email templates' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all templates at once (potentially overwhelming), uses pagination, requires authentication, has rate limits, or includes metadata like template IDs or names. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 ('List all email templates') that front-loads the core action and resource. There's zero waste—every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose 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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, authentication) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. For a simple list tool, this is borderline viable but leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any 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 email templates' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('email templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_get_email_template' (which presumably retrieves a single template) or 'vtex_create_email_template' (which creates one), leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific list operation versus individual retrieval.

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. With siblings like 'vtex_get_email_template' (for single template retrieval) and 'vtex_search_documents' (which might include templates), there's no indication of whether this tool is for bulk listing, filtered queries, or paginated results. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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