list_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that the default output is read-only (10 tools), that task tools are conditionally present based on write scopes, and that CRUD tools are deprecated unless raw scope is set. This goes well beyond a bare listing statement and helps the agent set expectations.

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 compact, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds necessary behavioral context about scopes and deprecation, though its jargon ('Task tools register', 'raw scope') could be slightly clearer. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter design and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral nuances: default read-only nature, conditional tool registration, and deprecation rules. It could be more explicit about the tool's purpose as a discovery mechanism, but it is largely complete for safe invocation.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description appropriately focuses on output composition rather than parameter details, which matches the baseline for parameter-free tools.

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 action ('List') and resource ('curated Manager.io capabilities'), establishing this as a meta-tool for discovering available capabilities rather than a data record tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_records and the financial report tools, though 'curated' is somewhat vague about the exact selection criteria.

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 does not explicitly state when an agent should call this tool versus alternatives like list_records or get_record. It mentions scope-related conditions for whether task or CRUD tools appear in the listing, but offers no direct guidance on when this tool is the right choice.

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