get_proposal_templates

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the openWorldHint annotation. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor mention pagination or filtering behavior. Since annotations only provide openWorldHint, the description misses an opportunity to clarify the tool's safety and output structure.

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, compact sentence that communicates the core purpose without redundancy. Every word is necessary.

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 empty input schema and lack of output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic function. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns IDs, names, or full objects), which is needed for effective agent usage.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description is not required to add parameter-level detail. The baseline score for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets this with a clear statement of what the tool returns.

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 'Lists' and the resource 'proposal templates', and specifies they are used as starting points for new proposals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_proposal (different action) and other template getters (different types).

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 such as get_design_templates or get_email_templates. It lacks context about selection criteria or exclusions.

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