list_activity_templates

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The verb 'lista' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, whether data structures are nested, pagination, or any side-effect traits. It is minimally transparent but lacks the richness expected for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

One focused sentence that starts with the action, names the resource, and gives two concrete examples. No filler or redundancy, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 listing tool, the description covers the basic purpose well. However, with no output schema and no usage guidance or return-value details, it leaves the agent unsure about what the returned data structures look like or how to interpret the output. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it effectively.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that it lists templates along with their data structures, even though there are no parameters to explain. Nothing more is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('listeler' – lists) and a clear resource: ready interactive content templates and data structures, with concrete examples (Matching, Multiple Choice Quiz). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like scaffold_interactive_activity, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or contrast with get_framework_specs.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the siblings. It implies 'use when you need to see available templates,' but there are no explicit usage contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. With two sibling tools present, this is a notable gap.

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