List CDN resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and world-open behavior. The description adds context about the resource type and returned fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or response size limits. This is comparable to the calibration example where annotations lower the burden, yielding a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, scope, and return contents without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what is listed and what information is included, and the annotations provide the safety profile. No critical gaps remain.

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 'traffic_distribution' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource type 'Anycast CDN resources (pull zones)', the scope 'in the account', and the returned fields 'settings, domains and state'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_cdn_resource (single resource) and list_vcdn_resources (virtual CDN).

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?

The description clearly implies the use case: listing all Anycast CDN resources in the account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear from the wording and sibling tool names, so this meets the 'clear context' bar.

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