list_share_templates

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-fetching of IDs, status codes, and directs modifications to an external site. While it does not explain error behavior on missing app or rate limits, it provides sufficient transparency for a read-only list operation.

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 with bold headers for prerequisites, important notes, and a clear call-to-action for user confirmation. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with critical usage guidance.

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 output schema, the description should cover key output fields. It mentions status codes but does not describe other return fields (e.g., template name, ID, creation date). This leaves the agent uncertain about what data the response contains, making it partially incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by explaining auto-filling of developer_id and app_id from context, which is not in the schema. This supplements parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool lists all share templates for the currently selected app, differentiating it from single-template retrieval (get_share_template_info) and creation (create_share_template). The verb 'List' and resource 'share templates' are clear.

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 explicit prerequisites (app must be selected), a mandatory pre-call to get_current_app_info, and a step-by-step process if no app is selected. It also warns against automatic selection when multiple templates exist, directing user interaction. This is exemplary guidance.

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