list_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, which cover safety. The description adds minimal contextual detail about return content ('with their sections') but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or ordering. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this meets the baseline but doesn't go beyond.

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, clear sentence that states the action, resource, and return content with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation with a full output schema, the description is sufficient. No prerequisites, additional context, or behavioral caveats are needed beyond what annotations provide.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description need not explain parameters; per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all available issue templates') and conveys the output includes 'their sections'. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_issue_from_template, which creates an issue from a template, and list_tags, which lists tags.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_issue_from_template or get_issue. The description implies a simple read-only listing, but there is no explicit statement of suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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