List MCP Server Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, pagination, return format). It does not contradict the annotations, so with annotations present the score aligns with the minimum viable.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the core function. However, it could be slightly more helpful by mentioning the need for server_id or hinting at the return format, so it does not reach a perfect score.

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 fully covers the single parameter server_id with a clear description ('MCP server id'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 'List the resources exposed by an MCP server' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like lyzr_list_mcp_servers (lists servers) and lyzr_list_mcp_server_tools (lists tools). It unambiguously identifies what the tool does.

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 use when you need to see resources for a given MCP server, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The distinction from sister list tools is embedded in the resource vs tool wording but not made explicit.

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