ListResources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'list' means operationally. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no waste. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema). The structure is front-loaded but lacks necessary elaboration.

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?

Incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, pagination behavior, or error handling. Given the rich sibling toolset and lack of structured metadata, the description is inadequate.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying resource listing. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with any parameter context.

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 '获取数据开发文件资源列表' (Get data development file resource list) states the verb ('获取' - get/list) and resource ('数据开发文件资源' - data development file resources), but is vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like ListResources (general) or ListFunctions, ListNodes, etc. It doesn't specify what 'file resources' means in this context versus other resource types.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like GetResource (singular) or other List* tools for different resource types. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. With many sibling List* tools, this omission is significant.

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