resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds safe behaviors like 'optional instance' and 'reveal opt-in only', but the note 'confirm for destructive ops' contradicts the readOnlyHint, creating confusion. The added value over annotations is limited.

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, with purpose in one sentence and action/safety notes in another. It is front-loaded and without fluff, though it could be slightly more organized.

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 complexity (15 parameters, output schema exists), the description is brief. It lacks details on pagination behavior, parameter interactions, and result format. The output schema covers return values, but the description could provide more guidance for a 15-parameter tool.

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 description maps parameters to actions (e.g., list(type?, format?, page?, per_page?)), adding clarity beyond the schema. However, not all 15 parameters are explained (e.g., max_chars, include_full), and schema coverage is 60%, so the description partially compensates.

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 'Unified resource listing and cross-type discovery,' which sets it apart from sibling tools that focus on specific resource types (application, service, etc.). The actions 'list' and 'find' are enumerated, making the purpose explicit and distinctive.

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 implies usage for listing/finding across all resource types, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus sibling tools for specific types. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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