list_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states what the tool returns (name, description, access_mode, last_used, vocabulary count) and explicitly notes its safety and performance traits ('Cheap; safe'). This adds meaningful context for an agent.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and return information. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple, parameterless list tool, the description is adequately complete: it enumerates the return fields and provides usage guidance. The lack of pagination details or ordering doesn't significantly impede an agent's understanding, given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by elaborating on the output rather than parameters, which is appropriate since there are none to document.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('your locally added resources'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also lists the specific fields returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_resources by confirming it lists all local resources rather than searching.

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 notes 'Cheap; safe to call anytime,' providing clear context on when it's appropriate to invoke the tool (i.e., it's low-cost and safe for frequent use). However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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