list_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 discloses the fields returned, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any potential side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any fluff. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return fields. It lacks mention of error handling or empty states, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, 0 parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, but it also does not add any param-related info.

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 the four vendored Liminate Agreement templates and specifies the fields returned (id, name, purpose, agreement source, sample evidence). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools which focus on drafting, explaining, testing, translating, or validating agreements.

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?

Usage guidelines are implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The siblings are different actions, so context suggests using this to view available templates, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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