delimit_resource_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or handles errors. The description is too minimal to inform the agent of important behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses two short paragraphs, but could be slightly improved by integrating parameter context.

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 output schema exists and parameters are well-documented, the description is adequate but lacks context on system prerequisites or return value structure. Overall, it covers the basics but has gaps.

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%. The description lists resource types but this duplicates the schema's parameter description. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 action (list) and the resource (resources from a connected system), and specifies the driver (github) and resource types (repos, pull_requests, issues, workflows). This differentiates it from sibling tools like delimit_resource_get (which gets a single resource) and delimit_resource_drivers (which lists drivers).

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 resources from a connected system, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delimit_resource_get. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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