get_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the semantic role of template IDs, but says nothing about error behavior for an invalid project_id, permissions, or whether the list is paginated or filtered.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the explanatory clause. Every part earns its place.

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, read-only, single-parameter lookup there is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for describing returns; it partially does so by explaining what template IDs mean. A brief note on what a template record contains would make it fully complete, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage (including the 'use query_project to find available projects' hint), the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description adds no further format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get available test case templates for a project') and clarifies the value of the result by tying template IDs to the fields available when creating/updating cases. That implicitly separates it from siblings like get_case_fields or get_configurations, though no sibling is named outright.

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 second sentence implies when an agent would care about templates (before creating or updating a test case), which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisite beyond project_id, and no routing away from alternatives such as get_case_fields.

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