list_aptos_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. It implies this is a read-only operation ('Get a list'), which is consistent with a listing tool, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination. The description adds some context about the workflow but lacks details on how the list is returned or any constraints.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and usage, which is sufficient for a simple listing tool. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the format of the returned list or any limitations, but the absence of an output schema doesn't heavily penalize this.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable as there are no parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of all available Aptos development resources.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Aptos development resources'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools, though it mentions one sibling (get_specific_aptos_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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to see what guidance is available, then use get_specific_aptos_resource to fetch the relevant one.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool (first, for listing) versus an alternative (get_specific_aptos_resource, for fetching specific resources), establishing a workflow.

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