list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the default payload (id, title, description, kind, format, uses, styles) versus the richer ids payload (capacity, posterCapacity, colors, tags, pixel sizes). It omits the max-12 ids cap and doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only listing, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and payload, then filters, then the detail path. The closing sentence about per-page templateId and add_template_pages is slightly tangential to a listing tool but earns its place as routing context; overall tight with almost no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return shape well for the default and ids modes. Field meanings are delegated to get_guide('templates'), which is acceptable, but an agent still lacks the full detail field list without a second call.

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 coverage is already 100%, yet the description still adds value: it explains that q matches titles, tags, uses, styles and descriptions, gives concrete examples per filter, and clarifies that ids takes precedence over the other filters.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('列出叮卡内置模板') and states its outcome ('挑模板、拿 templateId'). It also names the exact creation siblings (create_document_from_content, create_poster_from_content, create_document_from_outline, add_template_pages) with the kind each applies to, so an agent can distinguish it from every downstream tool.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: filter by kind/format/q, shortlist two or three, then fetch details with ids. It also states the override rule ('给了就只返回……不看 kind / format / q' in schema, echoed as subset semantics) and routes deeper field questions to get_guide('templates').

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