List templates

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond it: the result spans both user-saved templates and a fixed set of built-ins, and each entry carries an id and a name. It does not state ordering, paging, or what a 'saved' template entails, which are minor for a zero-parameter list call.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The return contents come first and the enumerated built-ins follow as concrete detail, so nothing needs trimming.

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, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers enough: it says what the list contains and names the built-in members. It could add one clause tying ids to render_template, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing filter or paging semantics the schema does not support.

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 a specific verb+resource ('List ... templates') and goes further by naming what comes back (ids and names) and enumerating the built-in templates. It is clearly distinct from render_template, render_pdf, and verify_receipt, though it never names a sibling to reinforce that separation.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before render_template, but the description never says 'use this to find a template id before rendering' or state any when-not conditions. Adequate but leaves the workflow inference to the agent.

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