vast42_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 only states the operation without mentioning pagination behavior, result structure, ordering, or whether this includes all nested resources. This lack of disclosure leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's exact 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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the core purpose, which is optimal for a simple list operation.

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 huge number of sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what constitutes a 'VAST 4.2 resource' (e.g., whether it lists all resource types or a specific endpoint), and it does not explain the return shape or pagination semantics beyond the parameter names. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect tool selection.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions and default/max constraints. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all VAST 4.2 resources'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list specific types (e.g., vast42_list_ads, vast42_list_creatives) by implying a broader, aggregate listing. However, 'resources' is somewhat ambiguous—it could mean all resource types or a single collection—so it lacks full specificity.

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 the many sibling list tools (e.g., vast42_list_ads, vast42_list_placements). No alternatives, exclusions, or context are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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