ds_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does explain parameter effects (resource_type filtering, full_name as prefix filter from root) but does not describe the return format, pagination, or any side effects. For a simple read-only list, this is acceptable but not thorough.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by an Args block. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The tool has only 2 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the purpose and parameters sufficiently, but it omits details about the return value structure, which the agent might need to parse results. Given the low complexity, the gap is moderate.

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 input schema only shows type and default values with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining resource_type values (FILE/UDF/ALL) and the meaning of full_name as a path prefix filter, including the empty-from-root behavior. This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('resources (files and folders)'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_view_resource or ds_download_resource. It also clarifies scope by mentioning 'at a given path'.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and the meaning of its parameters, implying when to use it (when listing resources at a path). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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