listResources

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world traits. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: it clarifies that only metadata is returned (no payloads) and that the scope is the current browser or MCP session. This helps an agent understand the lightweight, scoped nature of the call.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, scope, and key constraint. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's read-only metadata listing and scope. Minor gaps like pagination or filtering behavior are not critical here, and the output schema likely covers structural details.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional sessionId parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List'), resource ('resource metadata'), and scope ('current browser or MCP session'), plus an explicit exclusion ('without returning payloads'). This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like storeResource/deleteResource and from other list tools that return full payloads.

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 by naming the scope (current browser or MCP session) and the metadata-only nature, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listSessions or listLayers. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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