think_list_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' reasonably signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, and it discloses one return dimension (scaffold cost). However, it says nothing about permissions, caching, or side effects.

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 zero padding. It conveys subject and scope immediately and nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it is adequate for a trivial discovery tool. The unexplained jargon 'scaffold cost' is the main gap, though the output schema presumably defines it.

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 zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 (list) and resource (thinking modes/templates) plus an attribute of interest (scaffold cost). This clearly distinguishes it from the operational siblings (think, think_submit, think_verify), which perform or manage thinking rather than enumerate modes. The only weakness is that 'templates' in the name vs 'thinking modes' in the description creates mild terminology drift.

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?

Usage is implied: call it when you need to discover available thinking modes and their costs. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no alternative sibling is named for comparison, so the agent must infer the discovery role.

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