jpi_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no resources exist. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides helpful clarification about what resources are. Every word earns its place.

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 of listing resources in a system with many sibling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination, error conditions, or how it differs from other list tools. For a list operation in a rich toolset, this leaves significant 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all resources'), and provides a helpful definition of what resources are ('machines, workers, or other entities that perform work'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like jpi_list_resource_categories or jpi_list_resource_groups, but the resource scope is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling list tools (e.g., jpi_list_resource_categories, jpi_list_resource_groups), there's no indication of when this broader 'all resources' listing is preferred over more specific listings.

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