list_poster_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies read-only behavior through 'field guide' and describes the optional filter behavior ('Pass a template id for that one layout only'), which adds useful context. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the default return behavior when no template is passed.

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?

Three short sentences with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, the optional parameter behavior is stated in the second sentence, and the workflow guidance is in the third. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, the filtering behavior, and when to call it. The main gap is the absence of any distinction from the sibling get_design_principles, which could leave an agent uncertain which reference tool to select.

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 already documents the template parameter. The description adds only 'for that one layout only,' which reinforces the schema's 'Just this layout, in full' but does not materially extend it. This is the appropriate baseline when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 identifies the tool as a reference for poster layouts, palettes, sizes, and fonts, which is a specific resource and content scope. It does not explicitly use the verb 'list' but the name and 'field guide' make the informational purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from create_poster by placement in workflow, though it does not differentiate from sibling get_design_principles.

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 gives explicit contextual guidance: 'Call once before create_poster if unsure.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and provides a workflow cue. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare to get_design_principles, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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