cw_list_track_templates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "List" implies a safe read operation, and the second sentence adds useful domain context about templates and insertion, but it does not describe return format, pagination, permissions, or other listing behavior.

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 two sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the listing purpose and then briefly clarifies the domain term "template," which earns its place by helping an agent understand the resource.

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 listing tool with a fully documented schema parameter, the description is mostly complete: it says what is listed and that categories are returned, and it explains what a template is. Minor gaps remain because it does not mention the filter or return structure beyond category, but no output schema exists to require that.

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 single optional filter parameter is fully documented in the schema, which states that it matches name or category. The description does not add any further meaning about the filter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the .cwx track templates SONAR has available and says the category is included. It is clearly different from insertion tools in practice, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the sibling cw_insert_track_template.

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?

It explains what a template is and that inserting one is a verifiable way to put a plug-in chain into a project, which implies this list is useful before insertion. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus cw_insert_track_template or other track-listing tools, and it gives no exclusions.

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