get_text_templates

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation 'openWorldHint: true', which already indicates the list may change. No side effects or state modifications are mentioned. Since the tool is read-only, the description is acceptable but does not enhance understanding beyond the annotation.

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 sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and context. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No excess or redundancy.

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 (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It states what is listed and why, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke this tool correctly.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, for 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no extra parameter information, but since there are none, it is sufficient.

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 that the tool lists available language text templates and specifies their use: to create new proposals. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_design_templates, get_email_templates, and get_proposal_templates by focusing on text templates. The verb 'lists' and resource 'language text templates' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when one needs to retrieve available text templates for proposal creation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. For a simple parameterless tool, this is adequate but lacks depth to guide selection among similar siblings.

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