zenml_describe_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what each invocation returns: a short catalog, operations for a resource type, and a bounded input schema with a small example. It does not discuss side effects or error behavior, but this is a read-only discovery tool and those gaps are minor.

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 two sentences with no filler. The lead sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second sentence delivers the usage pattern in a compact, ordered way.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values do not need deeper explanation. The description covers all invocation modes and parameter combinations sufficiently for an agent to call the tool. It could mention what happens with invalid inputs or explicitly point to the sibling CRUD tools for actual operations, but those are not essential.

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 parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains both optional parameters and how they combine: resource_type selects a resource and operation narrows to a specific schema. It does not enumerate canonical resource type values, but the no-argument catalog is the intended way to discover them.

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 a specific purpose: discover supported generic ZenML resources or one operation schema. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD/list tools by being an introspective metadata tool rather than an action tool.

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 modes: no arguments for a catalog, resource type for operations, and operation name for the schema. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and separate from the sibling tools.

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