list_templates

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the tool does (scans the Templates directory) and exactly what it returns (JSON array with name, summary, and path). For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, this is sufficient behavioral disclosure; only minor gaps remain around failure modes or prerequisites.

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 short sentences/sections with no wasted words: purpose, scanning behavior, return format. The most important information is front-loaded in the first line.

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?

For a 0-parameter tool with an output schema, this is nearly complete: it gives the source directory and the structure of the result. It does not mention whether an engine must be active or registered, but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool accepts no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by declaring the return object fields, though no parameter-specific semantics are needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List available O3DE project and gem templates.' It further narrows the resource by saying the tool scans the engine's Templates directory for template definitions, making it clearly distinct from sibling tools that list actual projects or gems.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs template definitions rather than actual projects or gems. However, it never explicitly states exclusions or alternatives, and with siblings like list_projects, list_gems, and list_project_gems nearby, explicit guidance would help.

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