pixera_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a safe read by describing returned data and the effect of 'detailed' (adds file path and resolution), but says nothing about permission requirements, traversal/recursion limits, or whether the call is expensive on large projects. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then explains each behavior-bearing parameter, then closes with the downstream usage. Every sentence is doing work and none of it repeats the schema or title.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers output content, the two behavior-changing parameters, and the follow-on call. The gaps are minor: max_depth semantics/default and whether folder_name_path omitted means 'list all'.

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 must compensate and largely does: folder_name_path gets a concrete example ('Media/Screens') and its semantics ('starts at one folder'), and 'detailed' is explained as adding file path and resolution. Only max_depth is left completely undocumented.

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+resource ('Resource folder tree with each resource's name, id and type'), so an agent knows this returns a hierarchical listing of resources with identifying fields. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling pixera_find_resource, but the tree-listing scope is distinct enough to be usable.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: folder_name_path 'starts at one folder' and the returned id feeds directly into pixera_setup_layer(resource_id=...). That's a clear downstream workflow, though it never names an alternative tool (e.g. pixera_find_resource) or states when not to call it.

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