describe_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it explain the effect of the optional resource parameter (filtering vs. all). The resource list is given, but the parameter behavior is omitted.

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 compact: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, and a resource list. It is front-loaded with the core action. The resource list is helpful but somewhat lengthy; overall it is well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks an explanation of the optional parameter's behavior and the exact output shape. Given no output schema, the agent cannot know if the response includes field types or just names. However, the usage guidance is clear, so it is partially complete.

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 input schema has one optional 'resource' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description lists all resources but does not explain that the parameter filters to a specific resource or that omitting it returns all. The agent must infer this, which is insufficient for such a sparse 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 states a specific action ('List the record types this baby app stores and the JSON fields each accepts') with a clear verb and resource. This is distinct from siblings like log_record or search_records, which handle writes and queries.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call it before writing a record whose fields you are unsure about,' providing a concrete trigger. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it lacks exclusions.

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