Все ресурсы проекта

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

Annotation contradiction: the description says 'returns a summary', implying a read-only operation, but readOnlyHint=false indicates the tool is NOT read-only. No other behavioral context is provided (e.g., side effects, permissions, pagination). This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead the agent.

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 states the operation and resource scope without excess. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the structure of the summary or what 'all resources' includes (e.g., does it include SSH keys, IPs, network drives?). While the resource list is helpful, the incomplete enumeration and lack of return format leave gaps for a tool claiming to cover 'all resources'.

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 schema description covers project_id 100% with 'REQUIRED FIELD - Project ID'. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a summary of all project resources, enumerating resource types (servers, balancers, storages, clusters, DBs, dedicated servers). This distinguishes it from sibling list_all_project_* tools that target specific resource 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 context: use this tool to get an aggregated overview of all project resources. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the resource enumeration makes it clear this is the aggregate version of more specific list tools.

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