list_resources

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint and readOnlyHint, so the description adds value by explaining pagination behavior ('Results are paginated automatically') and filter case-insensitivity. No contradictions with 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args block. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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?

All four parameters are documented with defaults and behavior. Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does. No missing details for a list/filter operation.

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 parameter: common values for resource_kind, default and pagination note for limit, substring filter for name_filter, and optional target. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 explicitly states 'List resources in Aria Operations filtered by kind' with a clear verb (list) and resource (resources), and the [READ] prefix signals the operation. It distinguishes well from siblings like get_resource (single resource) or list_alerts (different resource type).

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 provides good context: common resource_kind values, pagination behavior, optional filters, and target defaults. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., get_resource for a single resource) or state when not to use this tool, which would make guidance clearer.

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