rendoc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns specific data fields (template names, slugs, categories, descriptions, paper sizes, and IDs) and mentions the optional filtering capability. However, it doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds filtering details and return values, and the third provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, filtering, return values, and usage with siblings. However, without annotations or an output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., response format, error cases), but it adequately serves the tool's simple listing function.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema (including description, type, and enum values). The description adds value by explaining the optional nature ('Optionally filter by category') and the effect of omitting it ('Omit to list all'), which complements the schema's 'Omit to list all' note, but doesn't provide significant additional semantics beyond what's already in the structured data.

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 'available document templates', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_template' (creation), 'delete_template' (deletion), 'generate_document' (generation), 'get_document' (retrieval), 'get_usage' (usage stats), and 'preview_template' (preview) by focusing solely on listing with optional filtering.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('List available document templates') and provides clear alternatives by naming specific sibling tools: 'Use the returned ID with `generate_document` or `preview_template`.' It also implies when not to use it (e.g., for creation, deletion, or retrieval of specific documents), though it doesn't explicitly list all exclusions.

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