resource_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that it lists resources and returns categorized JSON, but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., file system reads), performance impacts, error conditions, or whether the project must be open. Lacks detail beyond basic functionality.

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 well-structured with sections (Category, Args, Returns) and is mostly concise. However, it includes redundant defaults (e.g., 'default: True' for recursive) that are already in the schema, slightly increasing length. Overall, it is clear and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the return value description ('JSON containing categorized resource files') is sufficient. The tool has moderate complexity (4 parameters, simple list operation), and the description covers the core functionality and parameter usage. No major gaps are noted.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: project_path, directory, extensions, recursive. It provides context for defaults and examples (e.g., 'default: common asset types'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.

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: 'List resource files in a Godot project.' It includes a category label and distinct arguments. Among sibling resource tools (e.g., resource_create_material), it uniquely provides a list operation, making its purpose specific and distinguishable.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or when not to use it. The sibling tools list includes many other list operations, but no comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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