List MCP Server Resources

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that this tool discovers resources from a target server, which clarifies the 'openWorldHint' annotation. While annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent), the description usefully explains the tool's exploratory purpose and return format, enhancing behavioral understanding without contradictions.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the Args section could be more concise by relying on the schema, making it slightly verbose.

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 tool's complexity (list operation with server targeting), rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return format adequately, providing all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly without needing output schema 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents all parameters. The description's 'Args' section repeats schema information without adding significant meaning beyond it. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('List all available resources') and target ('from a target MCP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tools or list_prompts. It explicitly mentions discovering what resources a server exposes, which is distinct from reading resources or calling tools.

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 this tool ('to discover what resources a target MCP server exposes'), but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for resource discovery rather than tool or prompt listing, but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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