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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only restates that resources are listed and does not mention pagination, the optional resource_type filter, authorization requirements, or whether the result set spans multiple resource types.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly richer without becoming verbose.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters and an output schema exists, so an agent can construct a valid call from the structured data alone. However, with no annotations and only a one-sentence description, the tool's pagination behavior, resource_type filter, and relationship to sibling listing tools are left implicit, leaving a clear gap.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond reinforcing that the list is scoped to a project, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a clear verb ('List') and identifies the object and scope ('resources contained in a project'), so an agent knows immediately what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_datasets or list_monitors, but 'contained in a project' narrows the focus sufficiently.

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 implied by the phrase 'contained in a project' and by sibling tools such as add_project_resources and remove_project_resource, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over list_datasets, list_monitors, or other list tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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