Get resources

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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world, so the description's behavioral burden is lighter. It adds one useful behavioral detail—playerID is interpreted as a WCL sourceID—but it does not explain what 'bounded' means, how results are bounded, or what output shape to expect. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short and front-loaded, with no filler, so it earns credit for brevity. But the opening phrase 'bounded resource evidence' is jargon-heavy and under-specified, and the second sentence is an implementation detail that reads more like parameter documentation than a purpose or usage statement.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling tool set, the description is not complete enough to guide reliable selection. It does not describe what the returned evidence looks like, what bounds apply, or how this relates to the many nearby get_* tools. The annotations cover safety but not the semantic gaps.

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?

At 64% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters, and the description adds a small clarification that playerID maps to WCL sourceID, slightly beyond the schema's 'source/target filter' wording. However, parameters like abilityID, translate, maxEntries, and maxPayloadBytes receive no description-side help, and the playerID note mostly duplicates the 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 states a verb and object ('Get bounded resource evidence'), but never clarifies what 'bounded resource evidence' actually means or which resource types are included. It is less vague than a bare tautology, but it does not distinguish get_resources from the many sibling get_* tools beyond using the word '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?

There is no guidance about when to choose get_resources instead of get_events, get_casts, get_buffs, or get_character_casts. The only additional note, about playerID, is parameter clarification rather than usage direction. An agent would have to infer the intended use case from the tool name alone.

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