list_resources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safety, and the description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the return shape: static resources have a 'uri' field, templates have a 'uri_template' field with placeholders. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it could mention pagination or ordering if applicable.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds meaning. It briefly explains the output distinction without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the readOnly annotation, the description is complete. It covers the resource types, the return format, and the template placeholder pattern, leaving no critical gaps.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none, and the resource-return details are more relevant.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List all available resources and resource templates.' It clearly identifies the scope (all resources) and distinguishes from siblings like read_resource, which implies retrieving a specific resource, and list_prompts, which targets a different resource type.

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 phrasing 'List all available resources and resource templates' clearly communicates when to use this tool: when you need an enumeration of resources. It lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references, but the context is unambiguous, and the sibling tool names (read_resource, list_prompts) reinforce the intended use.

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