list_interview_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning return format, ordering, pagination, or read-only nature. This is a significant gap for an agent expecting to know what a call will yield.

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, concise sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should describe what the tool returns (e.g., array of template objects) and any relevant constraints. It provides none of this, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure and whether the tool fits its needs. This is incomplete for a list operation.

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 description correctly adds no parameter information. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description satisfies this trivially since there is nothing to explain.

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 'List saved interview templates' uses a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_interviews and list_assessments, and from template mutations. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify what 'saved' implies (e.g., excludes shared templates), so it's not perfectly crisp.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_interview_template or update_interview_template. The use case is implied (retrieving templates for reference), but no explicit context or exclusion criteria is given. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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