list_resources_2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the endpoint and an example relay URL, but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, default returns when no flags are set, or whether filtering is inclusive/exclusive.

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 concise and front-loaded, using a clear 'Args:' list and one example. The example line is slightly misplaced after include_relay but does not significantly clutter the structure.

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?

For a simple read-only GET endpoint with three optional flags and an existing output schema, the description provides enough information to call it successfully. It does not explain default behavior without flags, but this is a minor gap given the simplicity and available structured output.

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 full burden of documenting parameters. It does give a purpose for each flag (include_https, include_relay, include_ipv6), but the schema types are string|null and the description does not specify allowed values or boolean semantics (e.g., 'true'/'false'), leaving ambiguity.

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 a specific action 'Get Server Resources' and maps it to the GET /resources endpoint. While it is unambiguous about what it does, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'list_resources' or other list-* tools beyond the endpoint.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_resources' or 'list_servers'. It lists optional filter flags but does not explain the intended use case, prerequisites, or any exclusions.

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