list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention recursion behavior, file inclusion criteria (e.g., dot files?), or whether it is read-only. The description is too minimal for a tool with no 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?

Single sentence front-loaded with key information. No redundant words. Efficient despite lacking detail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of file paths, details). It does not. Additionally, it does not specify recursion depth or file types considered resources, leaving the agent to guess. Incomplete for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'extension' has a description). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify what 'resource files' encompasses or how paths are resolved, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 lists resource files in a Godot project, with examples of types (images, audio, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_scene_files or list_script_files by specifying 'resource files' as a broad category.

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 use for general resource listing against siblings that list specific types (scenes, scripts, projects). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives.

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