List SecObserve Resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'served from a static catalogue and makes no API call, so it is free to call first' — a trait not captured by any annotation. The Returns section also discloses output structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loads the core purpose and 'Start here' directive first. Each section earns its place, though the Returns detail could arguably be trimmed since an output schema exists.

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 single-parameter tool backed by a rich output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when/when-not to use, the alternative tool, parameter semantics, and return format. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or decide whether to call it is missing.

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?

Despite reported schema coverage of 0%, the description fully explains the single parameter: 'contains (Optional[str]): Substring filter on resource name and summary.' It adds the meaning (substring filter, applied to name and summary) that the schema's terse description also covers but the description makes explicit in prose, effectively compensating for the low coverage signal.

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 precise verb+resource: 'List every SecObserve resource this server can reach, with its verbs and named actions.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by framing itself as the vocabulary source for the list/get/create/update/delete/call_action tools, and explicitly contrasts with secobserve_describe_resource in the exclusion example.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' guidance with concrete scenarios ('what can I do with license policies?'), names the alternative tool (secobserve_describe_resource) for the exclusion case, and opens with 'Start here' as a strong directive. Nothing 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.