efm_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 mentions the resource types and digest information, implying a read-only listing operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or disclose any potential side effects such as pagination or rate limits. For a list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the scope ('All resources in EFM's resource manager') and then provides specific details (types and digests). It is concise and every element adds value with no redundant words.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains what resources are returned and their relevance (files EFM can push to agents), covering the essential information needed.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific details, which is fine given the absence of parameters; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 it lists all resources in EFM's resource manager, specifying the resource types (assets and extension bundles) and the returned metadata (names, types, SHA-512 digests). This verb+resource pairing is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like efm_list_class_resources, which focuses on class-level resources.

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 provides context about the resources ('the files EFM can push to agents'), helping an agent understand the purpose, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like efm_list_class_resources. There is no direct comparison or exclusionary guidance.

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