resource_supplement_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds the semantic clarification that these are player-visible texts not enumerated by the engine, which is useful domain context. It does not describe output volume, ordering, or whether results are grouped by project/workdir.

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?

A single compact sentence with the conceptual clarification front-loaded inline. No waste, though the parenthetical could arguably be more explicit about the list's purpose.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the domain concept but leaves the agent without guidance on result shape, ordering, or relationship to resource_supplement_add/remove, which matters given 50+ sibling tools.

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% — both parameters ('project' and 'workdir') are documented in the schema, including the default workdir path. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list) and resource (supplement entries), and adds a parenthetical clarifying what 'supplement' means ('text the engine does not enumerate but players see'). However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like resource_term_list or resource_style_list, which follow the same naming pattern. An agent must infer the distinction from the suffix alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus resource_supplement_add/remove or the other resource_*_list tools. The parenthetical explains what supplement entries are conceptually, but not the operational context in which listing them is appropriate.

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