list_mogrts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, whether it queries disk or the running app, ordering, or what a result entry looks like. Only the source scope ('installed with Premiere' and 'Essential Graphics library') is conveyed.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, so it is concise and front-loaded. But it is a noun fragment rather than an actionable statement, and the terseness comes at the cost of any real 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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the description should explain what is returned and how to filter. Instead it only names the resource, leaving the agent unable to predict the response shape or the filter's effect.

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 single 'filter' parameter is completely unexplained in the description — no indication of what fields it matches (template name, path, category), expected format, or whether matching is partial or exact. The description must compensate here and does not.

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 identifies the resource (Motion Graphics templates / .mogrt) and narrows scope to templates installed with Premiere and in the Essential Graphics library, which is genuinely more specific than the name alone. However, it never states the action (list/retrieve) and does not distinguish this from siblings like list_library_graphics or import_mogrt, leaving the purpose only implied by the name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as list_library_graphics, get_mogrt_media, or get_mogrt_properties, nor any note about prerequisites or typical workflow context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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