list_system_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the default ADOM resolution (DEFAULT_ADOM env var, falling back to "root"), the limit minimum, and explains truncation semantics via count vs. total. It does not state permission requirements or explicitly that it is read-only, but "List" makes the operation type unambiguous.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact clarifying sentence, then Args and Returns blocks. No filler; the pagination note is dense but each clause carries distinct information the caller needs.

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 two-parameter filtered-list tool, the definition covers defaults, validation floors, and pagination behavior. Since an output schema exists, the return-field explanation is redundant but the added count/total guidance is genuinely useful. Only permission/scope expectations are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it documents adom's default source (env var or "root") and adds a minimum of 1 for limit plus its default, none of which appears in the schema. It stops short of defining what a valid ADOM name looks like or how large a limit is reasonable.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List system templates") and clarifies the domain concept by equating them with "device profiles" and noting they configure DNS, NTP, logging. An agent can tell this apart from list_cli_templates or list_firmware_templates by subject matter, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 is implied: call this to enumerate system templates within an ADOM. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as list_templates for a broader listing, so the agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.

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