Шаблоны документов

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds no behavioral detail such as pagination, ordering, default business resolution, or what happens when no templates exist. It only adds domain context about .docx templates and counterparty documents, which is not a behavioral disclosure beyond annotations.

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 a single short sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core resource and adds one useful piece of context about how the templates are used, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple, the parameter is fully documented, and annotations cover safety and world behavior. However, the description does not explicitly state that this tool returns a list of templates or when to prefer it over templates_get, so an agent must rely on the tool name for part of the operational meaning.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'business' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema already explains that omitting it uses the default case or the sole case. This meets the baseline without requiring additional description.

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 identifies the resource clearly — 'Шаблоны .docx дела' (case .docx templates) and adds context about what they are used for. However, it contains no explicit verb such as 'list' or 'returns', so the action must be inferred from the tool name. It also does not distinguish this from the sibling templates_get.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use templates_list versus templates_get or any other tool. The description explains what templates are, but not the conditions under which this list endpoint should be selected.

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