list_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, performance, pagination, or output format, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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 a single sentence and concise, but it omits important information about the directory parameter, making it under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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 absence of output schema and the presence of many similar list tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., paths, names) or scope details (project resources vs. all resources), making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema descriptions cover both parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description only reinforces the 'type' parameter and omits the 'directory' parameter entirely, failing to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 that the tool lists resources filtered by type, which distinguishes it from the many sibling list_* tools that are specific to a single resource type. However, the term 'resources' is somewhat generic and could be more precise.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this general list_resources tool versus the specific sibling tools (e.g., list_scripts, list_shaders). Also, no when-not-to-use advice is given, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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