List all available resources and resource templates.
Returns JSON with resource metadata. Static resources have a 'uri' field, while templates have a 'uri_template' field with placeholders like {name}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it clarifies the return format ('Returns JSON with resource metadata') and explains the distinction between static resources ('uri' field) and templates ('uri_template' field with placeholders like {name}). This is useful context not covered by the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint annotations, and it does not contradict them.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence conveys the core purpose, and the second provides essential output details. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the primary action, the output format, and the key distinction between resource types. There are no significant gaps in what an agent needs to know to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist and the description compensates by explaining returned data structure.
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 states 'List all available resources and resource templates' – a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like law_read_resource (which fetches a specific resource) and law_get_prompt (which gets a prompt) by focusing on the enumeration of all resources.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention discovery workflows, prerequisites, or alternatives such as law_read_resource. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and listing behavior.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are well-grouped by domain prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_) with clear descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is minor overlap, e.g., dd_search could be used instead of individual searches, and dd_fetch versus dedicated profile tools might cause confusion.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with domain-specific prefixes (dd_, gov_, law_, prop_). Names are descriptive and predictable, e.g., dd_charity_search, gov_govuk_search, law_bills_search_bills.
70 tools is high but justified by the broad scope covering due diligence, government, legal, and property domains. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (about 15-20 each). The count is on the upper end but still manageable.
The tool set is comprehensive across all domains: full CRUD for companies and charities, detailed legal research (cases, legislation, parliament, citations), property data (EPC, planning, price paid, rentals), and government information. No obvious gaps for the intended use cases.