List Accessible Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the 'via their org' scoping nuance but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, result format, or what 'accessible' includes. No contradiction exists.

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, immediately informative sentence. It front-loads the verb and object, avoids filler, and contains no unnecessary wording.

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 three-parameter read-only list operation with strong annotations, the description is complete enough. It clearly communicates the operation's scope, though it does not spell out return-value structure or pagination, which are not critical for this basic list action.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for all three parameters, each with a clear one-line description. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond 'given type', which is already implied by the schema. Thus it neither helps nor hurts beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the specific resource scope ('resources of a given type ... shared access to'), with the added context that access is via the user's org. This distinguishes it from generic listing tools and sibling sharing 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 list resources of a given type that a user has shared access to via their org. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the stated scope is unambiguous.

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