deployment_listResources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. While it lists resource types, it omits safety confirmation (is this read-only?), error behavior (what if ID is invalid?), pagination limits, and whether returned resources contain metadata or full content.

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?

Single efficient sentence front-loaded with the action verb 'List'. Every clause earns its place: resource types are enumerated specifically, and the scope (by deployment ID) is clearly stated. Zero waste.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the operation's intent but lacks critical implementation context like return value structure or error conditions. For a resource-listing tool, mentioning the output format (array of resource objects) would significantly improve completeness.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters (empty properties object), which per rubric establishes a baseline of 4. The description mentions 'by deployment ID' which implies a filtering parameter, but since the schema is empty, this creates ambiguity about how the ID is provided (likely via path, but not clarified).

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 states the verb (List), resource (resources/BPMN/DMN/forms), and scope (by deployment ID). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'deployment_list' (which lists deployments) by specifying 'resources... included in a deployment', though it could explicitly contrast with 'deployment_getById'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'deployment_getById' or prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the deployment ID from 'deployment_list' first). The phrase 'by deployment ID' implies a dependency but doesn't clarify the workflow.

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