add_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the agent proxy canonicalizes the input, fetches the well-known doc, validates, and picks vocabularies, and it explains post-add states. It does not cover error scenarios or idempotency, but the disclosed details go well beyond a minimal description.

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 mostly concise and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then adding input details and post-conditions. However, the final sentence 'Currently added resources: no resources added yet' appears to be dynamic state or a placeholder, which does not belong in a static tool description and slightly detracts from conciseness.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input, process, and outcomes comprehensively. It omits return value and error handling, but given the simplicity and the detail provided, it is nearly complete. The extra state sentence adds confusion but not a major gap.

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 has one parameter ('resource') with no description, so the tool description must compensate. It does so by explaining the accepted formats (bare host, host:port, full URL) and noting that the agent proxy canonicalizes. This adds meaningful meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool's purpose: to add an AAuth resource to the local set. It uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('AAuth resource'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_resources and remove_resource.

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?

Provides clear context on how to use the tool, including accepted input formats (bare host, host:port, or full URL) and what happens after adding (immediate invokability or auth flow). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is strong enough to warrant a 4.

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