list_solver_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses ownership filtering and solverCode omission but does not explain pagination behavior, rate limits, or error conditions. The cursor and limit parameters hint at pagination but are not explained.

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 succinct with three short sentences, each adding distinct value. No redundant or unnecessary text. The main action is front-loaded.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on pagination (limit, cursor), return format, and default ordering. The mention of 'solverCode omitted' hints at output structure but is insufficient for complete understanding.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'track' parameter with an example ('solo' or 'marathon') but does not explain 'limit' or 'cursor'. Only one of three parameters is elaborated, leaving gaps.

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 action ('List solver templates'), the scope ('owned by the calling account'), and an important detail ('solverCode omitted'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like get_solver_template or create_solver_template.

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 a read operation via 'Scope: playground.read' but does not explicitly state when to use list versus other tools like get_solver_template. No guidance on alternatives or when not to use is provided.

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