List tracked resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the manifest-only scope, that verify performs a Databricks existence check per item and reports missing ones, and that results are paginated. Cost side-effects of verify are disclosed, though the trailing 'Safety classification: READ_ONLY' merely restates 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and scope before the verify behavior and pagination note; no filler in the body. The final 'Safety classification: READ_ONLY.' sentence is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation and could be cut, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 field list is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the annotations cover safety. The description supplies the scope, the verify side-effect, and pagination, which is everything an agent needs to call this read-only list tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents verify, page_size, page_token, and resource_type. The description reinforces verify semantics ('missing ones are reported') and implies pagination, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 specific verb and resource (List tracked resources) and immediately defines the scope: resources recorded in the local project manifest created through this server. It enumerates the returned fields (type, id, name, creating tool, creation time, workspace), which makes the tool self-differentiating from siblings like list_compute and delete_tracked_resource without needing to open a schema.

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 verify=true clause gives concrete context for when that option is wanted, and mentioning pagination hints at iterative use. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance or prerequisite statement (e.g., use before delete_tracked_resource, only sees resources created via this server). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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