List optimization templates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses the free/local nature ('0 API calls'), where custom templates live (Markdown files with frontmatter in the custom-templates folder), and the override precedence rule. It does not explicitly state that this is a non-mutating read, but 'List' plus '0 API calls' makes it clear.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by the customization/override rule and the cost note. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return shape more fully. It names what is returned (built-in and custom templates, ids) but says nothing about the meaning of the `type` filter values or what `showContent` adds, leaving gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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% and the description never mentions the tool's own parameters (`type` enum, `showContent`) or what they filter/return. The enum values optimize-system/optimize-user/iterate correspond neatly to the template categories but the description leaves the agent to infer that mapping. The id-usage note concerns the output, not the inputs, so it does not compensate.

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 and resource ('List built-in and custom optimization templates') and immediately clarifies what the returned data is used for ('ids usable as `template` / `iterateTemplate`'). The resource itself cleanly separates it from the sibling tools, which are all single-prompt optimization actions.

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 only implied: the note that ids are usable as `template`/`iterateTemplate` tells the agent where this output feeds, and '0 API calls' hints it is a cheap local lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus, e.g., running an optimization, and no mention of prerequisites or the `type` filter as a selection guide.

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