resource_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds the key behavioral fact that stopped resources are included ("whether or not they are running") plus the working-directory caveat. "Read-only" largely restates the annotation, and there is no disclosure of ordering or result size, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then alternatives, then the conditional parameter note. No filler or repetition beyond the small "Read-only" restatement.

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 two-parameter, zero-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers returned fields, inclusion of stopped resources, sibling routing, and the path caveat. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining when projectPath matters rather than just what it is. The `stack` filter is only echoed from the schema's own "Only this stack", so the gain is modest.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the selected project's services (resources)") and enumerates the returned fields (stack, type, port). It also names three sibling tools and the scope it does not cover, so an agent can distinguish it from status/stack_list/agent_list without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with the condition that selects each: `status` for live state, `stack_list` for grouping, `agent_list` for agents only. It also gives a concrete condition for setting projectPath (when the server isn't running from the project root).

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