list_dashboard_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. It mentions 'optional filtering by category' but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset in schema), rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a list tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key feature (filtering). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 low complexity (a list operation with filtering and pagination), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering feature, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or behavioral context. It's complete enough for a simple tool but leaves gaps an agent might need.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, offset, category). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering by category', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('dashboard templates'), and mentions optional filtering by category. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_dashboard_template' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_dashboards' or 'list_widget_templates' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, compare with similar tools like 'list_dashboards' or 'get_dashboard_template', or specify use cases. The only contextual hint is 'optional filtering by category', which is a feature but not a usage guideline.

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