list_operations

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: returns summaries only, keeps token cost flat, and includes a kind field. But it omits error behavior, pagination, side effects, and the significance of 'no resources added yet', which appears to be a transient state rather than tool 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 opening sentence is front-loaded and the query explanation is concise. The final line about 'currently added resources' does not describe tool behavior and seems like a state note, which reduces conciseness and clarity.

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 description covers the core purpose and return type (summaries with kind), but lacks details on resource parameter semantics, return fields, error cases, or output format. With no output schema or annotations, the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 query parameter is well described with matching semantics and an example. However, the required 'resource' parameter is only implied to be a resource, with no guidance on its format or how to identify valid resources. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more.

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 operations exposed by a resource, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_resources and get_operations by specifying it returns summaries only and that schemas come from get_operations.

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 explains the query parameter's two modes (free-text and path prefix) and explicitly mentions that get_operations should be used for schemas, which is a clear alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide comprehensive when-to-use scenarios.

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