List Dynamics 365 app templates

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. It usefully discloses the backing command ('pac admin list-app-templates') and that it runs under the active pac auth profile, which is real context. However it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor anything about result volume or pagination, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource definition front-loaded and the execution detail second. It is appropriately sized for a simple list command, though the second clause overlaps with what the profile parameter already explains.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema listing tool with five all-optional parameters, the description covers what the tool surfaces and how it runs, which is adequate. It does not indicate that no parameters are required or describe the shape of the returned template list, so an agent cannot fully predict the response.

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 100%, so all five optional parameters (cwd, region, profile, background, timeoutSeconds) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'per region', adding no syntax, defaults, or interplay beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Identifies the resource precisely (Dynamics 365 application templates available for environment creation, scoped per region). The title supplies the 'List' verb and the description makes the scope concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby sibling cs_admin_list_applications, so it stops short of a 5.

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 via 'templates that can be installed when creating an environment', which hints the agent should call this before cs_admin_create_environment. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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