list_gallery_templates

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 adds some behavioral context by describing templates as 'user-editable YAML files' and listing components like 'layout zones' and 'suitability criteria', which helps understand the data structure. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured and concise, with three short paragraphs that efficiently cover purpose, template details, and return format. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the resource (templates), their format (YAML files), key attributes, and the return type. However, with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details like data freshness or access constraints to fully compensate.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and context. It adds value by explaining what templates are and what the listing includes, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List all templates in the gallery with suitability rules.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('templates in the gallery'), and scope ('with suitability rules'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_dashboards' or 'list_worksheets' beyond the resource type, missing full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what the tool does but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'recommend_template' or 'diff_template_gap'. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without clear direction.

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