List project templates

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: no automatic paging and no pagination parameters, meaning one call yields the whole list. It also discloses that sources are not included. What 'compact' means for the payload is left unexplained, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded ahead of the negative constraints. The phrasing is dense to the point of being slightly cryptic ('One current v2 compact template list'), which costs it the top score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back; 'compact template list' is vague about the shape and contents of each template. It does resolve the paging question, but an agent gets little sense of the response payload for a list tool that may return many items.

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%, so both tags and account are fully documented in the schema, and the description only restates the tag filter. It adds no semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('template list') with a clear filter mechanic ('optionally filtered by any supplied tags'), which separates it from the singular sibling get_template. The qualifier 'One current v2 compact template list' is a bit jargon-heavy, but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It clarifies scope by ruling out sources and paging parameters, which implicitly tells the agent this is a simple filtered fetch. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. get_template for a single template) or states the condition under which this tool is the right choice, so usage is only implied.

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