list_native_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: no effect scripts execute, nothing is downloaded, and cache presence does not prove entitlement/playback. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies safety and limitations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the kind list, the caveat about entitlement/playback, and the safety note. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and safety. However, it does not describe the return format or how query/cache_root affect results, and with 0% schema coverage, an agent may not know how to use the optional parameters effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter by listing allowed values (all, animation, video_animation, text_animation, transition), but does not explain 'query' or 'cache_root'. The description adds some meaning for one parameter but leaves the other two undocumented.

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 verb ('Find') and resource ('reviewed native video/text animations and transitions in the local effect cache'), and lists the kind values. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_motion_presets or apply_native_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 implies usage for checking local cache presence and notes that cache presence does not prove entitlement or playback. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_motion_presets or apply_native_resource, but the scope is clear enough to infer.

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