Describe a portal resource

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

With readOnlyHint=true already provided, the description adds context about optional parameter behavior (omitting resource lists all resources) and the nature of the returned data (schema fields, verbs, risk domain). While it doesn't detail error handling, it enriches the behavioral understanding beyond the annotation.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second provides an alternative usage and a recommendation. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and contains no fluff.

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 the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main purpose, the optional parameter behavior, and provides a clear usage context. It does not leave significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 description adds crucial meaning to the 'resource' parameter by explaining that omitting it lists all resources, which is not mentioned in the schema description. This clarifies the optionality and the effect of not providing the parameter, making the tool's behavior fully understandable.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Show') and enumerates the information it provides (path, write fields, required-to-create fields, supported verbs, risk domain). It also distinguishes itself by naming a secondary mode (listing all resources) and explicitly positioning it as a precursor to create/update operations, setting it apart from sibling tools like get_resource or create_resource.

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: 'Call this before create_resource/update_resource' and notes the behavior when omitting the resource parameter. This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, providing both a typical workflow and an alternative use case.

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