List Program Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: results include drafts and are returned in display order, which affects how an agent interprets the output.

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?

Two compact sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded ahead of the targeting rule. Every clause (drafts inclusion, display order, fallback ID) carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, ordering, and ID resolution. It is essentially complete for a one-parameter list tool, with only minor gaps such as result volume or pagination hints.

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 campaignId parameter, and the schema already states the GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID default. The description restates that default without adding format, resolution, or precedence detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the participant resources configured for your GrowSurf program') plus a scope qualifier ('including drafts'), which clearly separates it from the create/update/delete program-resource siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool, so it lands at a clear-but-not-routing 4.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — there is no statement of when to call this versus siblings like growsurf_list_campaign_rewards or the get/update resource tools. The only conditional content ('targets campaignId if you pass it, otherwise GROWSURF_CAMPAIGN_ID') is parameter behavior, not when-to-use guidance.

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