misp_list_object_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose important details such as whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is (e.g., list of template names with IDs), whether pagination is supported beyond the 'limit' parameter, or any authentication requirements. The examples hint at the types of templates but leave many behavioral aspects undefined.

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 a single sentence that is direct and free of superfluous information. It includes useful examples without becoming verbose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide a more complete picture of the tool's behavior. It lacks information about the response structure, default limit of 50, error handling, or any usage constraints. For a list tool, understanding the output format is critical for the agent to properly process results.

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 100% coverage: both 'search' and 'limit' are described. The description does not add new parameter details but the examples of template types indirectly aid understanding of the 'search' filter. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter semantics.

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 the verb 'List' to clearly indicate the action, specifies the resource as 'available MISP object templates', and provides concrete examples (file, domain-ip, email, network-connection) that help the agent understand the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like misp_get_object_template, which retrieves a single template.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that for a specific template, misp_get_object_template should be used instead. The description implicitly suggests using this tool to browse available templates, but lacks explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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