bricks_list_templates

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns pagination totals, which is useful behavioral context for a list operation. However, it does not mention read-only nature, authorization needs, or any side effects, making it adequate but not rich.

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: first clearly defines purpose, second adds feature details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does, example types, filtering, and pagination. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of default ordering or behavior when no filters applied), but it is largely complete for the context.

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 100% with all 5 parameters described. The description adds 'Supports filtering by template_type and search' but this is already covered by schema descriptions. It does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 Bricks templates and gives specific examples (headers, footers, sections, content templates). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like bricks_create_template or bricks_get_template, which have different actions or resources.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information relative to siblings like bricks_get_template or bricks_create_template.

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