list_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing behavioral traits: it describes the return structure (dictionary with success, resources, metadata), error conditions (if not connected or retrieval fails), and the scope of retrieval (comprehensive information about all resources). It does not mention rate limits or performance details, but covers key operational aspects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, returns, raises) and is front-loaded with the core functionality. It is appropriately sized, but could be slightly more concise by integrating the 'Returns' and 'Raises' into a single behavioral section without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (listing resources), no annotations, 0 parameters, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the return format, and error handling, which is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly without needing to rely heavily on other fields.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on behavior and output. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 specific verb ('List all resources') and resource ('available on the connected MCP server'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_tools or list_prompts. It explicitly mentions what information is retrieved (URIs, names, descriptions, MIME types) and the purpose (to enable accurate resource access).

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 context by stating 'on the connected MCP server,' suggesting it should be used when connected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_tools or read_resource, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the connection requirement.

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