List resources

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the resource-group filtering capability but does not disclose behaviors like pagination, large-result handling, or the output shape. This is acceptable for a straightforward read-only list operation but not highly transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes meaning: the verb, the resource type, and the optional scope qualifier.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that, with no output schema, it does not describe the return payload shape or pagination, but this is not essential for a safe, idempotent listing operation.

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%, with the schema already documenting that subscription defaults to AZURE_SUBSCRIPTION_ID and resourceGroup limits results to that group. The description's mention of 'within a specific resource group' reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource type ('resources') and clearly defines the two scopes it supports: a whole subscription or a single resource group. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resource_groups and get_resource, which operate on different resources or cardinality.

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 phrase 'in a subscription, or within a specific resource group' indicates when to use the tool based on scope, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling such as get_resource for a single resource or list_resource_groups for groups. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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