List message templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: template bodies contain variables expressed as placeholders the template fills in, which an agent needs in order to interpret the returned body correctly. It does not mention auth scoping or pagination behavior, but schema and output schema cover the mechanics.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome ('List the message templates'), followed by return contents and then the cross-reference hint. No filler, though the placeholder sentence is borderline ancillary for a pure listing operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the annotations carry the safety profile. For a two-parameter read-only list, the description says enough to call it correctly and interpret the body placeholders; only an explicit usage hook into the send flow is missing.

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%, and both parameters (limit, cursor) are fully documented in the schema with ranges and provenance ('next_cursor from the previous page'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List the message templates saved in SendKuy') and enumerates the returned fields (channel, subject, body), which distinguishes it from siblings like sendkuy_list_messages and sendkuy_send_message. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting with the other list-type siblings.

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 rather than stated: the reader can infer this is the lookup path for templates used in sendkuy_send_message, and the last sentence explicitly links template_id to that sibling. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' framing and no exclusion telling the agent when NOT to call it.

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