list_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Qiita Team only' as a restriction, failing to describe pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise with just two words plus a parenthetical restriction, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for full understanding, slightly reducing its effectiveness.

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 is incomplete for a tool with pagination parameters. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like rate limits. The 'Qiita Team only' hint adds some context, but overall, it fails to provide sufficient information for reliable agent use.

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%, with both parameters ('page' and 'per_page') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('templates'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_template' (singular retrieval) or 'create_template' (creation), which would require explicit distinction to earn a perfect score.

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 minimal guidance with '(Qiita Team only)', indicating a restriction, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, no mention of alternatives like 'get_template' for single template retrieval, and no context about when this tool is preferred over other listing tools. This leaves significant gaps in usage understanding.

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