list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'List resources in the tenant.' It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or any constraints (e.g., maximum results). For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence of five words, with no wasted content. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and target.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic function. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., whether the list is flat or hierarchical, order), making it barely adequate for a simple tool.

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 zero parameters, and the description does not add parameter-specific meaning. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100% and there are no parameters to describe.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'resources in the tenant,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_namespaces, list_policies) by specifying the entity type.

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 for listing resources but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_resource_types) or any exclusions. There are no explicit when-not or alternative references.

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