resources_listLists every resource loaded in a page, grouped by frame with request ID, status, and size. Use it to inspect the page's source tree beyond Network panel buffering.
返回开发者工具「源代码 / Sources > 页面」面板里那棵树：按 frame 分层，列出页面实际加载的全部资源（文档、样式表、脚本、图片、字体、音视频等），并交叉带上对应的 requestId / 状态码 / 大小。与 network_list 互补：这里给的是页面资源视角（含已进入页面但未必在 Network 缓冲里的资源），network_list 给的是 HTTP 请求视角。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| targetId | No | 限定某个标签页，默认当前页 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tree shape, the frame-based grouping, the resource categories covered, and the cross-referenced requestId/status/size fields, plus the important nuance that items may not appear in the Network buffer. It stays silent on ordering, size limits, or cost of the call, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and then the complementary relationship. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing the return structure (per-frame tree with resource entries carrying requestId/status/size). That is enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result, though pagination and result-size behavior remain unstated.
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 100% and the single parameter targetId is already documented there. The description adds no further detail about the parameter (defaults, scope, format), so the schema does the work and the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: returns the DevTools Sources > Page tree, layered by frame, listing all page-loaded resources (documents, stylesheets, scripts, images, fonts, media). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling network_list, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
It names network_list as the alternative and gives the condition that selects between them (page-resource perspective vs HTTP-request perspective, including resources that entered the page but may not be in the Network buffer). It doesn't route against resources_get, the obvious detail sibling, so the guidance is clear but not complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.