List Template Variations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context by specifying it lists 'all variations' and defines variations, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or return format. With annotations providing core traits, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some value but not rich behavioral details.

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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second clarifies what variations are. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.

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 (single required parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It defines the resource and scope ('all variations'), but lacks details on return values or error handling. With annotations filling key gaps, it's mostly adequate for a read-only 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'template_id', which is documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is applied, as no additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 ('variations of a template'), explaining that variations are alternative configurations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dual_get_template' (which fetches a single template) and 'dual_list_templates' (which lists templates, not variations). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'dual_get_template_assets' or 'dual_get_template_faces', which might be related but not identical.

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 (e.g., needing a valid template_id), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'dual_get_template' (for single template details) or 'dual_list_templates' (for listing templates themselves). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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