dev_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as mutation side effects (add/delete are mutating), permission requirements, or what happens on failure. The mention of 'via the plugin' is vague.

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 single-sentence description is very concise, front-loading the purpose and action details without any waste. Every part adds 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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 3 actions, no output schema), the description covers the main operations and target options. However, it omits return values, edge cases, and does not confirm that listing returns a list or that add/delete are mutating.

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 adds meaning by explaining which parameters are needed for each action (url required for add/delete, name optional). However, it does not fully explain the target node parameter or how current selection works.

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 manages dev resource links on a node with explicit actions (add, list, delete) and target specification, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are largely design or token operations.

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 explains the three actions with parameter syntax and target options (nodeId or current selection), providing clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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