List chat templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds scope ('chat response templates') but does not disclose pagination, filtering behavior, or return format, which are not covered by 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds 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?

As a read-only list tool with optional filters, the description and annotations provide adequate basic context. However, the cryptic 'with' parameter and lack of any output format information leave gaps for an agent seeking full understanding.

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 only 25%, with just 'with' having a description ('reviews'). The tool description does not explain page, limit, filter_external_id, or the meaning of 'with', leaving agents to guess parameter purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('chat response templates'), adding scope with 'including WhatsApp/WABA'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_templates_get, kommo_templates_create, etc.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kommo_templates_get or kommo_templates_create. The only signal is the verb 'list', which implies usage but does not explicitly state exclusions or context.

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