list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the content of the listing (sprite sheets, fonts, .manim, .anim files), which is the key behavioral fact for a read-only enumerator, but it says nothing about ordering, whether results reflect an instant snapshot, or how load state is determined.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with the resource categories immediately after the colon. No filler, no redundancy, every token contributes to identifying what is returned.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description covers the essential question of what will come back by naming the resource classes. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits any relationship to the more specific list_* siblings.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level explanation is needed or expected.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (loaded resources) and enumerates what counts as a resource: sprite sheets, fonts, .manim and .anim files. This distinguishes it from narrow siblings like list_fonts and list_atlases by scope, though it doesn't explicitly say it is the superset of them.

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 when-to-use guidance or explicit routing to alternatives. With siblings list_fonts and list_atlases present, an agent must infer whether this overlaps with or supersedes them; the description never says to prefer those for narrower queries.

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