list_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a list and implies read-only behavior, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple list tool this is minimal but acceptable.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the action and resource efficiently.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for the agent's basic needs. It conveys the essential purpose, though it does not explicitly specify the return value structure, which would be expected without an output schema.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing beyond the empty schema, but since no parameters exist, there is nothing to explain. The description's mention of 'all available' aligns with the no-filter semantics.

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 'List' with a clear resource 'all available resume templates', which precisely defines the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resumes. The resource is clearly different, so there is no ambiguity.

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 implies the tool is for listing templates, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No comparison is made with sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage from context.

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