List Pod Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: the default result set is official templates only, and workspace scoping must be requested. It omits any mention of pagination despite `limit`/`cursor` existing.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary list mode front-loaded, followed by scoping and then filtering. Every sentence adds a distinct, actionable fact and there is 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be described, and the dual list/get modes, workspace default behavior and filter vocabularies are all covered. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for `limit`/`cursor` and the `template` vs `template_id` naming mismatch, which an agent must resolve from the schema alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden; it partially compensates by enumerating plausible `app_type` values (ide, framework, custom) and `hardware_type` values (gpu, cpu, any) that the schema lacks. However, `limit` and `cursor` are never explained, and the description calls the selector `template_id` while the schema field is `template`, which invites a wrong argument name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the pod templates') plus the exact scope: official templates by default, official plus a workspace's custom ones when scoped. It also declares the second mode ('show one by template_id'), so an agent knows this single tool covers both list and get without consulting siblings.

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 explicit conditional guidance: pass `workspace` to include custom templates, omit it for official-only, and cross-references the `workspaces` tool as the id source. It also names the two filters. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over creating a pod with `create_pod`/`estimate_pod`, so no true exclusions are offered.

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