Lists available schematic templates in the installed package without requiring configuration or disk writes, so users can identify usable templates before building circuits.
Describe templates available in the installed package, without configuration or disk writes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds 'without configuration or disk writes', which reinforces the side-effect profile but does not cover auth, rate limits, or return shape; with annotations present, this is a moderate contribution.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless listing tool.
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 simple zero-parameter read-only list tool with rich safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states scope and absence of side effects. It could go further by clarifying what is returned or how it differs from get_schematic_template, but no critical calling information is missing.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so the schema and description confirm there is nothing to document. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 states a concrete resource (templates in the installed package) and clarifies that it is a read-only discovery operation. It does not explicitly contrast with get_schematic_template or other siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as get_schematic_template. The use case is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.