list-templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as whether it returns all templates at once, includes pagination, or has rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't add value but also doesn't contradict annotations.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the return format (e.g., list structure, template fields) or how it interacts with siblings, which could help the agent use it correctly. With annotations covering safety, it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which aligns with the schema. A baseline of 4 is given since the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('email templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling operations like 'get-sandbox-messages' or explain what distinguishes 'list' from 'show' operations among siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'get-sandbox-messages' or 'show-sandbox-email-message' from the sibling list. It lacks any context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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