list_gaql_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral caveat beyond that: it returns 'commonly used' resource names, signaling the list is not exhaustive — an agent that assumed completeness could wrongly conclude a resource is unavailable. Return shape (plain names vs. objects) is left unstated.

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?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, which is right for a trivial lookup tool. The second sentence ('Returns commonly used resource names that can be queried via GAQL') largely restates the first, adding only the 'commonly used' qualifier, so a small amount of the text is redundant.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials, but the return format is only loosely described — 'resource names' could be strings or objects, and the description never confirms the list's shape or the fact that any name returned is directly usable in a FROM clause. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the call is parameterless by not suggesting any filtering or arguments.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List available GAQL FROM-clause resources') and ties the output directly to a named sibling ('for use with execute_gaql'), so an agent can tell it is a discovery helper rather than a data fetcher. It does not distinguish itself from other metadata-ish siblings such as get_field_metadata, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'For use with execute_gaql' implies the workflow (discover a resource name, then query it), which is helpful context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not guidance, and no mention of alternatives like get_field_metadata for field-level lookups, so the routing is left to inference.

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