list_experiment_templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so ('Always safe to call; never writes anything'), and notes the paged structured response. It stops short of richer behavioral detail (auth scope, pagination boundaries with offset/limit), so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: identity, return shape, sibling disambiguation, and routing. Nothing is padded and the disambiguation is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the read-only nature is stated. The remaining hole is the fully undocumented filtering/paging parameter set, which leaves an agent guessing at how to narrow results.

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?

Seven parameters (q, sort, tags, limit, order, state, offset) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains any of them — notably 'state', which is ambiguous, and how sort/order interact. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List elabFTW experiment templates') and immediately disambiguates from the closest confusing sibling by asserting templates are 'DIFFERENT from item types (use list_item_types for those).' An agent can select this without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives by intent: list_item_types for item types, get_experiment_template for a single record, create_experiment_from_template for consuming one. It also states the safe-to-call condition, so both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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