list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: it states totals are computed, expenses and fixed costs are summed on their own line, and results are sorted by largest budget cost first. These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in annotations, though it does not mention pagination or parameter effects on output.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose (resources with totals) and adds key output characteristics (sorting, grouping). It is concise and free of fluff, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter semantics, but overall it is 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?

The tool has three parameters (one required) with zero schema descriptions, and the description does not explain what path, limit, or project refer to. There is also no usage guidance or mention of return format beyond textual description. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional context, making the description incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining path, limit, and project. However, the description does not mention any of these parameters or their meaning, making it impossible for an agent to know what values to provide. The description only describes output, not inputs, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool lists resources assigned in the project with totals, including budget/actual/remaining units and cost, resource type, and how expenses are summed. It is specific about the resource focus and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities or activity_detail, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'list' is implied by the tool name and the description's phrasing, so it is clear but not maximally explicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_activities or schedule_summary. The description only describes what the tool returns, not the context in which it should be selected. No exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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