accelo_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 behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but doesn't state whether it's safe, idempotent, or if it requires specific permissions. It also lacks details on pagination behavior beyond the 'page' and 'limit' parameters, and doesn't describe the return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists parameter details efficiently. It is appropriately sized and every sentence contributes. The use of a structured 'Args' section aids readability.

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 complexity (listing with filters, pagination) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the main parameters and their roles but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, rate limits) and doesn't explain return values or how to handle pagination beyond defaults. It is sufficient to invoke but not rich.

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. It does provide useful details for the 'filters' parameter (listing keys) and mentions 'search over title' and 'fields' example, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully explain all filter keys or the format of 'fields', and 'page'/'limit' are only briefly described. The description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List resources (attachments) from Accelo.' It also clarifies the entity ambiguity by equating 'resources' with 'attachments'. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from siblings like accelo_get_resource, accelo_count_resources, or accelo_download_resource_url.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for listing multiple resources, nor does it point to accelo_get_resource for fetching a single resource or accelo_count_resources for counting. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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