list_task_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 of behavioral disclosure, and it provides none. It doesn't reveal that this is a read-only query, what a 'task resource' is, or how the include_* flags affect the response.

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 text is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no front-loaded explanation, scope, or content worth the tokens spent.

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?

A 5-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation is inadequately described. An agent cannot determine what resources are returned or how the include flags shape the result.

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?

Five parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description documents none of them. The two required params (robot_sn, map_id_list) and the include_paths/include_regions/include_positions toggles are entirely unexplained.

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 is a bilingual restatement of the tool name ('List task resources'), with no elaboration beyond the name itself. 'Task resources' is vague and gives no basis for distinguishing this from siblings like list_map_resources or list_robots.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites for how this differs from the many other list_* tools in the sibling set.

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