list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or output format details. The term 'list' implies non-destructive behavior, but more explicit transparency would be beneficial.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information. It is highly concise and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the scope and result. Minor potential additions like mentioning the output format (e.g., 'Returns a list of resources with status') would slightly improve completeness, but it is already sufficient.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'node', with a clear example. The description adds context by tying the parameter to the action of listing resources. This meets the baseline for a simple parameter, with no additional enrichment needed.

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 specifies the verb 'List', the resource types 'VMs (qemu) and containers (lxc)', and the scope 'on a node with their current status'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_nodes or get_resource_status.

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 implies usage for listing all resources on a given node, but it does not explicitly guide when to use alternatives like get_resource_status for a single resource or get_node_status for node-level status. No boundary conditions or prerequisites are stated.

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