list_report_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return structure (success, templates, categories) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the name but not confirmed.

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 concise and well-structured, with clear sections for the overall purpose and Args/Returns. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, optional, has output schema), the description provides adequate context: lists the three categories and output fields. It does not explain how to use the output further or reference the sibling tool for individual templates, but is largely complete for a list operation.

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 description provides a Japanese explanation for the sole parameter 'caller_agent_id' as '呼び出し元エージェントID（必須）', adding meaning beyond the schema which only shows type and default. However, it claims the parameter is required while the schema shows it is not (default null, no required list), creating a contradiction. The schema description coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but the contradiction reduces reliability.

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's purpose: retrieving a list of available report templates. It also mentions the three categories (code survey, integrated report, general survey), which adds specificity. The tool name 'list_report_templates' distinguishes it from sibling 'get_report_template' (singular).

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 implies usage when a list of templates is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The sibling tool 'get_report_template' exists, but no comparison is made.

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