list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing the 'identity + conditions only' limitation, meaning it returns only identity fields and conditions, not full resource bodies. It also clarifies the allow-list restriction and explicitly excludes secrets, which is beyond 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded, and structurally organized with an Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information (purpose, parameter explanations, allow-list restriction). No fluff or repetition.

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 simple nature, an output schema exists and the description does not need to detail return values. It covers scope (allowed types), namespace semantics, and security constraints. The phrase 'identity + conditions only' is left somewhat vague, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains 'resource' with concrete examples (managedclusters, placements, etc.) and defines 'namespace' behavior ('limit to one namespace; empty lists all'). This adds meaning beyond bare schema property names, though it does not exhaustively list valid resource values.

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 tool performs a 'Generic list' over 'an allow-list of OCM API types', with specific verb ('list') and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from specialized siblings (e.g., list_placements) by being generic, and enumerates example resource types, making its purpose 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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: for OCM API types on the allow-list. It explicitly states an exclusion—'Secrets and other credential resources are not on the allow-list and cannot be read'—which is a when-not condition. However, it does not name alternative tools for disallowed resources, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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