list_resources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates the tool is non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond this by explaining the output structure (JSON with resource metadata) and the key distinction between static 'uri' fields and templates with 'uri_template' placeholders. This extra detail about the return format and resource types exceeds what the annotation provides, though the read-only behavior itself is not elaborated further.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the primary action and object ('List all available resources and resource templates') and then provides necessary detail on return format and resource types without any redundant or vague phrasing. Every sentence adds meaningful content.

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, clear output schema present), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (JSON metadata) and the critical distinction between static and template resources, which is essential for understanding the tool's behavior. The presence of an output schema means the description does not need to enumerate all return fields, and it covers the key context an agent would need to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (vacuously). There are no parameter semantics to explain, so the description does not need to add any meaning. The description fully aligns with the input schema, and there is no ambiguity or missing parameter information.

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 action ('List') and the target ('all available resources and resource templates'). It distinguishes between static resources and templates, making the purpose unambiguous even without opening the schema. This is a precise, specific statement of what the tool does.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like read_resource or legal_list_laws. It implies that this is for discovery (listing all resources), but it does not provide direct guidance on selection criteria. The information about static vs. template resources is helpful but does not constitute explicit usage direction.

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