Get Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context about resource models but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, ordering, or that it returns only models and not instances). This aligns with the provided calibration example where the annotation coverage lowers the bar, but the description adds limited behavioral value.

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 front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence. The subsequent two sentences provide domain context that, while not strictly necessary, helps explain the meaning of 'resource models'. It is concise without padding, but the background sentences go slightly beyond the immediate purpose.

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?

This is a simple no-parameter list operation. The output schema is present, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description clearly states the scope ('all... resource models') and provides enough domain context for an agent to select it among many siblings. It is complete for its complexity.

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 the input schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, 0 parameters earns a baseline score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and the schema coverage is 100%.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('all Lifecycle Manager resource models from Itential Platform'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_resource (which creates) and describe_resource (which describes a single resource) by explicitly stating it gets all resource 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 useful context about what Lifecycle Manager resources are, which helps the agent understand the purpose. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_instances or describe_resource, nor does it state any exclusions. The context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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