list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are filtered by the token's visibility and 'vm' includes both QEMU and LXC. These are consistent with the annotations and add value, but no further behavioral details are disclosed.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and scope, then adds a useful clarification about the vm type. There is no filler or redundant text; every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter, annotations cover the safety profile, and an output schema exists. The description communicates the token-scoped visibility and resolves ambiguity in the vm type. The main gap is not stating the default behavior when resource_type is omitted, but the overall definition is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining resource_type. It clarifies the 'vm' value but leaves 'storage', 'node', 'pool', and 'sdn' semantically undefined. It also does not explain what happens when resource_type is null (the default), which is important for correct invocation. The agent must rely on enum names and inference.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('cluster resources'), and a scope qualifier ('visible to this token'). It also clarifies the 'vm' resource type by noting it includes QEMU and LXC. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_nodes or list_storage, but it is clear enough that an agent can understand the core purpose.

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 context about token-scoped visibility, which implies the tool respects permissions. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the more specific sibling tools (list_guests, list_storage, list_nodes), nor does it say when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the generic resource_type parameter.

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