list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool lists resources with no side effects, which is appropriate for a read-only operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching, permissions, return size limits). The description is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and resource. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a clear description, and an output schema exists (though unseen), the description provides sufficient context. It explains what is listed and gives examples. Slight gap: no mention of how the output is structured, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning since none exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already fully describes the input.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'all registered MCP resources' with concrete examples (capability map, dispatcher catalogues, reference data), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_available_groups.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_available_groups or list_tools_by_capability. The description implies it is for listing MCP resources, but lacks comparison or exclusion criteria.

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