list_resources

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's return format detail (uri vs uri_template distinction with placeholders) adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe pagination, ordering, or whether resource metadata is complete — meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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 three short sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the purpose directly, second explains return format, third clarifies the template vs static distinction. Everything earns its place.

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 0 parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema present, the description covering purpose, return format, and the static-vs-template distinction is well-calculated for completeness. The addition of a brief note about template placeholders like {name} makes the return data self-explanatory.

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 0 parameters, so the schema already covers 100% of parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (uri vs uri_template fields), which serves as the semantic payload. With no params, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource construction: "List all available resources and resource templates" — clearly states what the tool returns. It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_resource by covering the enumeration/listing function rather than fetching a single resource.

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 implies it is the tool to enumerate available resources, but does not explicitly contrast with read_resource (which fetches a specific resource) or give when-to-use/not-use guidance. Context is clear but no exclusions or alternative tool names are explicitly mentioned.

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