list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Lists', implying a read operation, but doesn't describe return format, filtering behavior, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 phrase, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It offers almost no useful information beyond the tool name, so every word is present but fails to add value.

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 that the tool has an optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least explain the filter's purpose and the nature of the returned resources. It does neither, leaving key aspects undocumented.

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 single parameter type_filter has no schema description (coverage 0%), and the description does not mention it at all. The agent has no guidance on what values to provide or how filtering works, making the parameter effectively opaque.

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 the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'project resources', providing a clear basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_resource_info or get_resources_dependencies, which also deal with resources, so the scope is not fully clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many resource-related siblings (get_resource_info, get_resource_dependencies, etc.), the description gives no context for selecting this tool.

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