list_device_resources

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing what data is returned (package pin, I/O bank, features, alternate function, current user) and explaining free_only behavior, going 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 information-dense yet well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then details GPIO and other block types, and ends with a note on free_only. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what resources are listed, filter options, and the free_only toggle. It doesn't mention limit behavior or pagination, and the return format is implied but not explicit, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains bank, feature, block_type, and free_only with examples, but limit and project are left implicit. It partially covers the parameters but not all, missing explicit semantics for limit and project.

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 it lists physical device resources for Interface Designer placement, with specific details about GPIO and other block types. It effectively conveys the resource type and scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like get_io_assignments.

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 filter usage guidance (e.g., bank, feature, free_only) but doesn't advise when to use this tool over alternatives like get_io_assignments or get_utilization. It implies usage through content but lacks explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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