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 'Unified resource listing and cross-type discovery', which is consistent and reinforces the read-only, exploratory nature. However, it does not elaborate on behavioral traits like pagination or truncation, which are partially covered by schema descriptions. No contradiction with annotations.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core idea. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 complex with two action modes ('list' and 'find') and many parameters, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain the dual actions, parameter relationships, or how to achieve common tasks. An output schema exists, but the description fails to leverage it for completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level purpose. No parameter-specific semantics are enhanced.

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 'Unified resource listing and cross-type discovery' clearly indicates the tool is for listing and discovering resources across multiple types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'database' or 'project' that are type-specific. The verb 'listing and discovery' combined with 'cross-type' conveys a specific resource and scope.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., database, project). While 'unified' and 'cross-type' hint at its broader scope, there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria to help the agent decide.

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