ipt_list_managed_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the credential requirement, which is useful signal about the tool's environment dependency)Skip. It does not describe the return format, whether the call has side effects, or what happens if credentials are missing, but for a simple listing operation the prerequisite disclosure provides moderate transparency.

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, direct sentence that includes the core purpose and the necessary prerequisite. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important qualifier ('Resources the configured IPT user can manage') appears first.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list utility, the description is largely complete: it states the subject, the user scope, and the required credentials. It falls slightly short of perfection because it does not explicitly say that the output is a list of resource identifiers or descriptions, but that is reasonably inferable from 'Resources.'

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description needs to add no parameter-level meaning. The statement about the configured IPT user and credential requirement slightly enriches the context around those implicit settings, but mostly the schema is complete.

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 states what the tool provides: 'Resources the configured IPT user can manage.' This is clear enough to understand the tool lists/manages the resource set tied to the IPT user, and the name 'list_managed_resources' reinforces the action. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like ipt_list_instances or ipt_list_datasets, but the 'can manage' qualifier distinguishes this from generic instance/dataset lists.

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 when to use it – when you need to know what the configured IPT user can manage – and it highlights a concrete prerequisite: 'needs IPT_EMAIL/IPT_PASSWORD.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any sibling alternative such as ipt_list_instances or ipt_list_datasets. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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