hub_resource_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the core list behavior. It does not disclose the output format, default truncation behavior, or pagination; these are partially covered by the `full` parameter's schema description, but the tool description itself does not mention them. The read-only nature is implied by 'List', but no explicit safety or side-effect context is given.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the action and the resource with parenthetical examples. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail—every word earns its place.

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 tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description covers the basics. However, it omits any mention of the default behavior of truncating long lists (which is only in the parameter schema) and gives no pointers to when to choose this over similar tools. For a minimal list tool it is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 50% coverage: `full` is described, `type` is not. The description's phrase 'Optionally filter by type' adds meaning to the `type` parameter and provides examples of possible values in parentheses. However, it does not elaborate on the `full` parameter, which is already covered by the schema, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 a resource ('resource cards') with examples of included types (hosts, vms, services, endpoints, providers). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like hub_resource_get or hub_resource_set, as it is about enumerating multiple entities rather than fetching or updating a single one.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives such as hub_resource_get or hub_search, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'optionally filter by type' note is about parameter usage, not usage context.

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