get_resources

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains what resource models are but doesn't explicitly state this is a read-only operation, whether pagination applies, or any permissions needed. The 'Get' verb implies read-only but doesn't explicitly confirm safety.

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 two sentences: the first gives the core purpose, the second adds useful context about resource models. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description adequately explains what resource models are and what the tool does, which is sufficient for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool. The output schema exists to define return values. It lacks mention of potential pagination or performance implications for 'all', which would be useful.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter to document. The description reinforces that the tool fetches all models without filters, which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline 4 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 gets all Lifecycle Manager resource models, using the specific verb 'Get' and specifying the resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like describe_resource (specific resource) and create_resource (creation) by emphasizing 'all' and 'models'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve all resource models. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined. Sibling tools like describe_resource imply how this one differs.

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