List SheetRender templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states it is a listing operation that returns template ids, which is the core behavior. It adds context about being a prerequisite mapping step, which helps the agent understand its role. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or non-mutating, but that is strongly implied. It also does not mention return format or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is a minor omission. The description is transparent enough for correct invocation.

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, front-loaded with the domain context and the tool's purpose, then immediately gives the when-to-use guidance and the arg note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, what it returns (ids), and when to call it. It does not describe the exact response structure or pagination, but those are often inferred and not critical for a simple list operation. The context about SheetRender and the mapping step adds completeness. Minor gap: it does not mention how many templates might be returned or any limits, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero properties, and the description explicitly says 'Takes no arguments.' This goes beyond the schema by removing any possible ambiguity about whether arguments might be accepted (an empty schema could be misread). The explicit statement adds value and fully clarifies parameter expectations.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('lists the templates saved in the user's account') and clarifies the value it provides (the id each one needs). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the listing step against the rendering/job tools (render_template, create_batch_job). This is unambiguous and effectively differentiates the tool.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call it ('Call it first whenever the user refers to a template by name') and points to the follow-up tools (render_template, create_batch_job). It also notes the tool takes no arguments, which is a useful usage hint. No ambiguity about when or how to use it.

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