list_resources

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it documents the paginated return envelope (items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint) and instructs to check `truncated` before treating results as complete. This gives the agent important operational knowledge without contradicting 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 well-structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, a brief return-envelope note, and a short Args list. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundant or filler content, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded in the first line.

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 list tool with no output schema and 4 optional parameters, the description covers the purpose, usage sequence, pagination details, and all parameter semantics. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool without needing extra context.

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 description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each of the 4 parameters: resource_kind with examples, limit with default and pagination behavior, name_filter with case-insensitive substring semantics, and target as an optional config name. This adds meaning well beyond the schema's property names.

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 'List resources in Aria Operations filtered by kind' and specifies the resource type examples. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as the entry point ('Start here') and mentioning get_resource for detail, making its purpose and scope 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Start here' to convert a name/kind into a UUID, then 'call get_resource for detail on one row.' This establishes a clear workflow and differentiates when to use this tool versus get_resource for follow-up detail.

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