list_templates

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

The description is transparent about being a read-only listing operation. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided) and discloses the return format. For a simple list tool, this is adequate behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, followed by details in an Args/Returns format. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters with defaults, and return format. Given it's a list tool with an output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct invocation, though it could mention whether results are paginated or ordered.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: adom (with default behavior) and limit (maximum count). It also explains the return structure. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 all provisioning templates in an ADOM, returning all types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_sdwan_templates and list_system_templates by specifying it covers all types, making its scope immediately clear.

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 explains it returns all template types, implying it's the general list tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over type-specific lists (e.g., if only IPsec templates are needed). Still, the context provides enough guidance for appropriate use.

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