get_account_resources

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, without mentioning read-only nature, possible side effects, data freshness, error behaviors (e.g., invalid address), or performance characteristics. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., units of bandwidth/energy, whether it's current resources) and error handling. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description for 'address' (TRON address). The description adds context that the result includes bandwidth and energy, but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema. Given high coverage, baseline is 3, and description adds marginal value.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('account resources') with specific clarification of 'bandwidth and energy'. This distinguishes it from many siblings that deal with transactions, blocks, or other aspects. However, it could be more explicit about retrieving resources for a given address.

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 tool versus alternatives such as get_energy_consumption, estimate_energy, or get_balance. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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