get_resource_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose performance characteristics, caching, or what constitutes 'registered' resource types. This is adequate but minimal for a read-only tool.

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 that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and effective.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides enough context: it returns all registered resource types. It could optionally mention the return format, but it is not strictly necessary.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are none, it is sufficient. Baseline 4 applies.

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 tool retrieves all registered resource types in the engine, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('resource types'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_resource_properties' or 'list_resources'.

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?

While the tool's purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_resources' or 'get_available_node_types'). The usage is implied but not stated, which is acceptable for a simple query tool but lacks depth.

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