list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, making the safety profile clear. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination defaults, auth requirements) beyond the resource scope, so it does not significantly extend transparency beyond annotations.

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-structured into a purpose statement, categorized resource list, a cross-reference note, and labeled parameter descriptions. While lengthy due to the exhaustive resource list, every section adds necessary value for a catch-all tool. A slight improvement could be a more compact grouping.

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's broad scope (many configuration resources) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, all supported resources (key for catch-all), parameter semantics, and cross-reference for filters. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter: resource (with reference to the enumerated list), name_contains (case-insensitive substring match), filters (key-value pairs with key constraint), limit, and offset (pagination). This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 it lists any Pexip configuration resource that has no dedicated tool, with a comprehensive categorized list. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific resources or provide different operations.

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 explicitly calls it a 'catch-all' tool and lists all supported resources, implying usage when no dedicated list tool exists. It also references get_resource_schema for filterable fields, guiding effective use. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the resource list effectively conveys scope.

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