list_available_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful, but it does not disclose details such as whether the list is limited to the current server, whether it includes only registered resources, or whether invocation has any side effects. It is not misleading, but it is thin.

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 one short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary action and object, and the mention of usage patterns is the only added detail, which is efficient.

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 zero-parameter schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not clarify the return format or how 'available MCP resources' differs from the many sibling registry/subject listing tools. An agent might still need additional context to select it confidently.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, this is appropriately handled.

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, 'List', and clearly identifies the target resource: 'available MCP resources'. Adding 'usage patterns' suggests the tool returns more than just names. It does not fully distinguish itself from siblings like list_registries or list_subjects, so it is not a 5.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as suggest_resource_for_tool, list_registries, or list_subjects. It neither states a use case nor names exclusions, so an agent must guess which list-related tool fits.

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