fx_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration, but says nothing about whether it returns on-disk resources vs. running ones, result size/pagination, ordering, or required permissions for a live server.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for the ambiguity in the sibling set, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description's only real job is to differentiate this listing from fx_list_live_resources and fx_list_backups, and it does not. The minimum viable information is there, but the sibling ambiguity is left unresolved.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is fully closed (additionalProperties: false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the mention of 'subcategorias e metadados' hints at result shape but adds no parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Lista todos os recursos ... no servidor FXServer'), so the agent knows it enumerates FXServer resources. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling fx_list_live_resources or fx_list_backups, which is exactly the ambiguity that matters here.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of alternatives such as fx_list_live_resources or fx_get_resource_info for deeper per-resource detail. The agent must guess which listing tool is appropriate.

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