l2kc_list_resources

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that mock data are test fixtures and that there is no automatic rotation, which is useful, but it omits permissions, rate limits, and the read-only nature of a list 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 short but poorly structured; it leads with a noun fragment rather than a purpose statement and jumps between mock-data warnings, filtering behavior, and output details without logical flow. It is concise but not front-loaded.

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 a simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description should at least clarify purpose and both parameters. It provides some behavioral notes but leaves the core purpose and the provider parameter unexplained, so an agent would have to infer too much.

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 must explain both parameters. It mentions that ``account`` lists only that account, adding some meaning, but says nothing about the ``provider`` parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 opens with 'Accelerators' and 'Memory is per GPU,' which are nouns and facts but not a verb+resource statement of what the tool does. It never says it lists GPU resources or how it differs from sibling gpu_list_resources, leaving the purpose vague.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many list_* siblings. The notes about account filtering and no rotation are behavioral, not usage conditions or alternatives.

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