list_template_placeholders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states exactly what is searched (body, tables, headers/footers, footnotes), what counts as a placeholder, and that output includes counts and locations. 'Find' implies a read-only operation, and the relationship to fill_template and mail_merge adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope, then adds an important relationship to sibling tools fill_template and mail_merge. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 one-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is found, where it is found, what the results contain, and how the names relate to downstream tools. It gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke this tool correctly in a template-processing workflow.

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?

With a single required file_path parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description only indirectly clarifies that file_path refers to a template via the phrase 'in a template'. The parameter is self-descriptive and the context is sufficient, but the description adds no explicit guidance on path format, file type, or required template structure.

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 names a specific verb (find), a specific resource (template placeholders), and two concrete placeholder types ({{name}} and legacy MERGEFIELD). It clearly distinguishes this tool from broader document-info or text-search tools by narrowing scope to template placeholders with locations and counts.

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 communicates clear context: the results are the keys that fill_template and mail_merge expect, so an agent can infer this tool is for pre-flight discovery before rendering templates. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it against alternatives like find_text or list_fields, but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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