list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mandatory ordering constraint and the zero-argument nature of the call, but says nothing about the return shape (e.g., template identifiers) or auth/rate-limit behavior. The workflow requirement is real added value, but coverage is partial.

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, front-loaded with the imperative 'MANDATORY FIRST STEP' so the constraint is the first thing read. The closing sentences are mildly promotional ('perfect spacing, typography, and layout') but they justify why the mandate matters, so they mostly earn their place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and rationale adequately. The main gap is that it never hints at what a template looks like or that the returned template identity is what feeds the subsequent add_slide_from_template call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema description coverage is reported as 100%, but with an empty properties object there is no parameter semantics to convey.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List all available slide templates'), so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. It positions itself against the add-slide workflow rather than naming a sibling tool like add_slide_from_template, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It states an explicit precondition ('YOU MUST call this before adding any slides') and explains the consequence of skipping it (templates are the only way to create good-looking slides). This is unambiguous when-to-use guidance with a clear ordering constraint.

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