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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists resources with optional filtering, but doesn't describe what 'registered resources' means, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, permissions required). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all registered resources') and adds a key detail ('with optional filtering'). There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at filtering, but lacks details on behavior, output format, or differentiation from siblings. For a list operation in a context with many similar tools, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters (project_path, tags, type) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'optional filtering', which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like filter syntax or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all registered resources'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filtering, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'list_maps', 'list_projects', or 'list_plugins', which all appear to list different types of resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that list specific resource types (e.g., 'list_maps', 'list_projects'), there's no indication of whether this tool is more comprehensive or serves a different scope. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives are mentioned.

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