List vCDN resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no behavioral details such as response format, pagination, ordering, or any caveats. It adds little beyond the scope, thus not contributing additional transparency.

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, concise sentence: 'List all Video CDN resources in the account.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains no extraneous words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

This is a parameterless list tool with no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It states the core function but does not describe what a vCDN resource is, the response structure, or any limitations. It is minimally viable but lacks detail to fully orient the agent.

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, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly innuates a simple list call with no inputs, aligning with schema coverage of 100%.

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 action ('List'), the resource type ('Video CDN resources'), and the scope ('in the account'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_vcdn_domains and list_vcdn_files, though it doesn't explicitly define what a 'resource' is. A clear verb+resource+scope is present, earning a 4.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_cdn_resources or get_vcdn_resource. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools mentioned, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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