List Templates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what templates are and the filtering options, which helps the agent understand the domain context. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and defines templates, the second specifies filtering options. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with filtering/pagination), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the resource and filtering but doesn't detail output format or pagination behavior, which is a minor gap since there's no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all four parameters (prefix, fqdn, limit, next). The description mentions filtering by prefix or FQDN, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('token templates'), and explains what templates are ('define the structure, properties, and actions of tokenized objects'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'dual_get_template' (singular fetch) and 'dual_public_list_templates' (public version). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dual_list_template_variations' or 'dual_list_objects' which might be related.

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 usage for listing templates with optional filtering by prefix or FQDN, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'dual_public_list_templates' (public access) or 'dual_get_template' (single template). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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