list_resources

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that execution happens remotely, returns JSON, and details the resource/template distinction. However, it omits obvious behavioral aspects like read-only nature, potential pagination, authentication needs, or error behavior—though these are often implied for a listing operation.

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 concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core listing purpose. The opening 'Catalog entry.' is somewhat redundant with the name, but the remaining content is dense and useful. No filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential return format (JSON metadata) and the distinction between static resources and templates. It also notes the remote execution context. While it doesn't address auth or errors, those are minor for a read-only list operation, and the description is adequate.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; the baseline for 0 params is 4. It adds no parameter-related content, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('all available resources and resource templates'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_resource and list_prompts. The description explicitly names the two output categories (static resources vs templates) and their fields.

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?

Implies usage for enumerating resources but does not explicitly contrast with read_resource (which fetches a specific resource) or list_prompts. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing; the context note 'Runs in your Kuudo deployment, not here' is a deployment hint, not usage direction.

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