list_templates

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

The description discloses pagination behavior: page_size has a max of 100 and default 20, page_number is 1-based with default 1. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides titles and defaults. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it covers the key read-only trait and pagination constraints. No mention of rate limits or auth, but for a simple list operation this is sufficient.

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 very concise: one line for purpose followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the main action. Could be even more compact, but it achieves clarity without wasting space.

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 has no output schema and low parameter complexity. The description covers purpose and parameter details but does not hint at the return format (e.g., a list of template objects). For a list tool, the return is somewhat obvious, but completeness would benefit from a brief note on what the response contains. This is a gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema has no descriptions for its 2 parameters (coverage 0%), so the description must compensate. It adds concrete constraints: page_size max 100, page_number 1-based. This provides meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. The baseline for 0 schema descriptions is 4, and the description meets it.

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 clearly states 'List WhatsApp message templates.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose. Among sibling tools, other list tools like list_campaigns, list_channels, list_contacts exist, but list_templates is distinct and self-explanatory.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance is provided. The intended usage is implied (list templates when you need to view them), but the description lacks explicit context or exclusions. For a simple tool this may be acceptable, but it still leaves room for ambiguity.

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