List Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds return value details and an instruction about handling IDs. However, the claim to 'List all' may be misleading given pagination parameters (limit, after, before) are present, implying single-page retrieval. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior or rate limits, so additional transparency is limited.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. It immediately states the action and resource, then adds useful return field info and a practical tip. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise.

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?

This is a simple list tool with no output schema and no required params. The description covers the main purpose and return fields, which is helpful given no output schema. However, it doesn't mention pagination behavior or that 'all' might require multiple calls, relying on the schema's pagination parameters. This is a minor gap for a list tool without an output schema.

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 input schema covers all three parameters (after, limit, before) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't compensate or enhance the parameter understanding.

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 tool lists email templates from Resend, specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-template (single) and create/update/remove by focusing on listing all templates. The mention of return fields (names, statuses, aliases) further clarifies its purpose.

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 the use case of enumerating all templates but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get-template. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools. The phrase 'List all' gives context, but there's no direct 'use this when' language.

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