box_docgen_template_list_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via 'marker' and 'limit' parameters, which is useful context. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements (though implied by 'client'), rate limits, error handling, or what 'accessible to the user' entails (e.g., permissions). The return type hint adds some value but lacks detail on metadata structure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. There's minimal waste, though the return statement could be more concise. It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks behavioral context like authentication, error scenarios, or metadata examples. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but more guidance on usage and constraints would improve completeness for this list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents all 2 parameters ('marker' for pagination, 'limit' for max items per page) and their purposes, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't specify default values, constraints (e.g., min/max for 'limit'), or format details for 'marker'.

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 the verb ('List') and resource ('Box Doc Gen templates accessible to the user'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'box_docgen_template_get_by_id_tool' and 'box_docgen_template_get_by_name_tool' by focusing on listing all templates rather than retrieving specific ones. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools in the server.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare with similar tools like 'box_docgen_template_list_jobs_tool' or 'box_docgen_template_list_tags_tool', or specify use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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