list_template_entities

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 does not state whether the call is read-only (implied but unstated), whether results are paginated, or what authorization/setup is required for the managed package context.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scoping clause is attached directly to the resource. Efficient, though it is concise at the cost of leaving the parameter underspecified.

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 no parameter documentation anywhere, a full sentence of description is not enough: valid template_type values and the return shape remain unknown. A caller cannot reliably invoke this without trial and error.

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 parameter template_type has 0% schema description coverage and no enum, and the description only says 'of the given type' — circular phrasing that never reveals the accepted values or format. This is the main functional gap for an agent trying to call the tool.

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 ('List') and resource ('template entities'), and adds scope ('in the managed package') that separates it from the generic list_entities / list_registry_entities siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus list_entities, list_registry_entities, or get_template_entity, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a managed package configured. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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