list_resources

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: a default read-only set of 30 tools, task tools appearing only when write scopes match, and CRUD tools being deprecated unless raw scope is set. This scope-dependent registration behavior is real context beyond the 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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the scope-dependent behavior details. Efficient, though the middle sentence is slightly compressed and could be clearer.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it sensibly focuses on what the listing contains and how it varies by scope. Given a 0-param discovery tool, this is largely complete, with only the sibling-routing gap remaining.

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 for the description to explain; the schema coverage is 100% and the description's role here is limited. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4.

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?

States a verb and resource ('List curated Manager.io capabilities'), but 'capabilities' vs the tool name 'list_resources' leaves ambiguity about what is actually being listed. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling get_server_info, which an agent would also treat as a discovery/meta tool.

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 sentences describe the conditional contents of the returned list (write scopes, deprecated CRUD), not when an agent should call this tool versus alternatives like get_server_info or list_records. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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