List templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only a hint about what fields the templates carry; it says nothing about whether results are account-wide or per-channel, whether the list can be empty, or whether custom versus built-in templates are mixed.

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?

A single short parenthetical sentence with no wasted words, but it is a fragment with no leading verb and no statement of purpose, so it is terse without being well-structured.

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 parameters, no output schema and read-only annotations, there is little to explain, and the field list gives a rough picture of what comes back. Still, an agent cannot tell the scope of the listing or how to distinguish custom templates from defaults before upload workflows.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the enumeration it does provide describes return content rather than inputs, which is harmless here.

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 is a noun phrase enumerating template fields (title format, description footer, default tags, hashtags, category, playlists, voice guidance) rather than a verb-plus-resource statement. It does make clear the resource is metadata templates for uploads, but never says it lists them or what scope (channel/account) they cover, so it reads as an inventory definition rather than an action.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of the closely related siblings save_template and delete_template, nor any mention of prerequisites such as connecting a channel first. The 'available for uploads' phrasing hints it feeds upload-related tools, but the agent must infer that.

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