list_data_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It discloses pagination and that templates are reusable pre-authored bodies. However, it does not describe ordering, filter matching behavior, authentication requirements, or what fields will be present in the response beyond what the schema already mentions.

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 compact two-sentence structure that front-loads the action, defines the resource, gives downstream guidance, and notes pagination. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 straightforward list tool with optional pagination and title filter, the description covers purpose, template semantics, downstream use, and pagination. It does not describe the return shape (no output schema) or filter matching semantics in detail, but the schema provides pagination response fields, and the tool's simplicity makes the description reasonably complete.

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%: both `page` and `title` are already described with useful detail. The description adds only the 'Paginated' note, which is already echoed in the `page` parameter description. Since the schema carries the parameter explanation, the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource, 'Wraft data templates', and adds a parenthetical definition ('pre-authored document bodies with fillable placeholder fields') that clarifies what is being listed. It also distinguishes this from related get/create tools by mentioning how template ids are used downstream, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear downstream usage: 'Use a template id with get_data_template or create_document_from_template.' This implies this tool is for discovering template ids. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_content_types or say 'use this when you need a template', but the guidance is helpful enough.

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