List Genkai resources

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

The 'Read' verb aligns with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, and the description adds specific context about what data is accessed (PJM resource-group availability, account limits). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, permission requirements, or potential side effects, though annotations already cover safety adequately.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Read' and immediately specifies the exact resources. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description fully captures the scope and expected data. It indicates what will be returned (availability and limits) even without an output schema, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema has no parameters, and the description does not need to explain parameters. With 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant parameter information.

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 tool reads 'PJM resource-group availability' and 'this account's scheduler limits', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs, list_files, and list_modules, which focus on other entity types.

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 checking resource availability and scheduler limits, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It relies on the reader to infer context from the resource scope mentioned.

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