ghostrigger_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool only lists resources and returns a JSON string with the shape {'resources': [{uri, name, description, mimeType}, ...]}, which is meaningful behavioral detail. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' and 'Returns,' though it does not explicitly rule out side effects or describe error behavior.

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 well organized: a one-sentence purpose, concrete URI examples, a return-type declaration, a KB pointer, and an example call. It is slightly redundant in saying 'List all...' and then 'Returns the list...,' but there is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description provides enough detail to select and invoke it correctly: purpose, return format, example output fields, and a call example. The KB reference adds a discovery path for deeper context, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from ghostrigger_list_mcp_tools, which lists MCP tools rather than resource templates.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema leaves nothing to document. The description reinforces this with a call example, ghostrigger_list_resources(), which is sufficient. This matches the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'List all kotor:// URI resource templates available from GhostRigger.' It goes beyond the tool name by explaining that these are URI resource templates and gives concrete examples of the template formats. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghostrigger_read_resource, which consume individual resources rather than listing available templates.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool when you need the catalog of kotor:// resource templates exposed by KotorMCP/GhostRigger. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the examples and return type make the intended use unambiguous for a zero-argument list operation.

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