email_templates_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'Templates support dynamic variables that are replaced with actual data when emails are sent' which adds behavioral context, and notes the category default. However, it doesn't disclose return format, pagination behavior, or whether companyId is required when no company is selected, which are meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 covering purpose, category filtering, and dynamic variable context — efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Minor redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions but minimal waste overall.

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 simple filtered-list tool with no output schema and only 2 optional parameters, the description covers the essential behaviors well. The dynamic variables context is a nice addition for understanding intent. It lacks return format info but that's acceptable given no output schema requirement.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters well. The description reinforces the category values and default, which adds some value, and mentions companyId in the schema context. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 applies and the description provides marginal additive value about how these filter results.

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 'List all email templates configured for the selected company' with a specific verb (list) and resource (email templates), scoped to a company. It distinguishes from siblings like email_templates_create/update/delete by being a list operation. Could be improved by noting it's a read-only operation vs write siblings.

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 explicitly explains the category parameter for filtering by document type with default values, which provides context for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the category filtering guidance gives reasonable usage context. Not quite a 5 because it doesn't explain when NOT to use this vs other template tools.

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