list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming safe read behavior. The description adds valuable context about the return format (JSON with metadata) and the distinction between static resources ('uri') and templates ('uri_template' with placeholders). This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and subsequent sentences clarify return structure and template notation. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 parameters, the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed and the key distinction between static resources and templates. No additional information is needed for an agent to understand its function.

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 has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, the description does not need to add parameter info. It correctly focuses on functionality.

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' and the resource 'all available resources and resource templates'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'read_resource' (which reads a specific resource) and 'list_providers' (which lists providers), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 implies usage for discovering available resources before using other tools, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., 'use read_resource for details of a specific resource') or direct comparisons to siblings. The usage context is clear but not elaborated.

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