List Resume Templates

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/no-destructive, so the description's real value is explaining non-obvious domain flags: parse_certified=false meaning a 'ready' template still loses word boundaries, and engine_available=false meaning a LaTeX template on a TeX-less backend still renders via Typst with a render_note. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not cover pagination or result size.

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 with the core action and the returned field list, then two compact parenthetical clarifications for the ambiguous flags. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly over-packed but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does so for the fields an agent would act on (status enum values, is_default, last_error, parse_certified, engine_available). It omits ordering and any note that this is a full list with no filtering, which is a minor gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its words on returned-field semantics, which is appropriate and adds value over the empty schema.

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+resource ('List resume templates') and immediately scopes it ('both engines'), and enumerates the shape of what comes back (id, display_name, status, engine, is_default, last_error). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_template, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 by the listing action, and it routes one narrow case to validate_template ('parse_certified false ... see validate_template'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_template or when to prefer this over create/update_template_draft. Guidance exists but is incidental rather than directive.

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