List all resources in a compartment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context by emphasizing 'every resource' and the Resource Search implementation, but it does not mention potential pagination, result format, or any search-specific limitations. This is a minimal but not rich addition beyond 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Enumerate every resource in a compartment' immediately conveys the action and scope, and the parenthetical adds relevant implementation context without bloating the text.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency), the description provides sufficient orientation for an agent to call it correctly. It could mention pagination or return shape, but for this straightforward list operation with full schema coverage, the current text is largely complete.

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 single parameter compartmentId is fully described in the schema as 'Compartment OCID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no further detail about the parameter's format or behavior, so it does not exceed the schema's contribution. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ('Enumerate') and resource ('every resource in a compartment'), making the tool's function immediately clear. This scope distinguishes it from siblings like list_compartments and get_resource, and the mention of 'via Resource Search' clarifies the underlying mechanism without obscuring the purpose.

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 the tool should be used when you need all resources within a specific compartment, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like search_resources or list_compartments. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only the implied context from the name and phrasing.

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