message_templates_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: that results include Meta approval status when scoped to an inbox, and that the unscoped call returns a different (global) catalog. Pagination behavior is left to the schema rather than restated.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the two-way branching is front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 read-only list tool with all five parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key scoping decision, and what extra data appears in the scoped case. Only minor gaps remain, such as not hinting at pagination expectations when the result set is large.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns above that by explaining what inbox_id actually changes about the result set and why one would pass or omit it. The optional page/limit/search/category parameters are left entirely to their schema descriptions, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 and resource ("Lista modelos (templates) de mensagem") and immediately qualifies the scope, so an agent knows this is the enumeration counterpart to message_template_get. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the list-vs-get distinction is self-evident from the name pair.

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 gives an explicit branching rule: supply inbox_id to enumerate that inbox's templates (e.g. WhatsApp Cloud with Meta approval status), omit it to browse the global CRM catalog. That is actionable when-to-use guidance for the only meaningful decision this tool requires. It stops short of naming a preferred default or an alternative tool for other query shapes.

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