List resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clarifies that resources are connected systems but does not describe pagination, default result size, or safety characteristics; the limit parameter's behavior is only in the schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a compact first sentence. However, the second sentence is tangential to a listing tool and does not clearly earn its place in this definition.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, the description lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and the second sentence is confusing rather than completing the operational picture.

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%, including the limit default and maximum, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about how limit affects listing behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List midPoint resources (connected systems)'. This clearly distinguishes it from singular retrieval siblings such as get_resource, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against test_resource or search_objects.

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 get_resource, test_resource, or search_objects. The second sentence concerns naming conventions when writing to a person, which is unrelated to selecting this listing tool.

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