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 disclosure burden, yet it only says 'Names of' resources — it never states that the call is read-only, that the default limit is 200, whether results are truncated or paginated, or how `filter` matches. The phrase 'Names of' is a small useful hint about the return payload but far short of what a 3-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage needs.

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 compact sentence with the resource class front-loaded and the type list following. Nothing is wasted, though the terse 'type = ...' syntax reads like a note rather than a structured instruction.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain the two undocumented parameters and the result shape. It covers only one of three parameters, leaving an agent unable to predict truncation or filtering behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for `type` by enumerating the accepted values (which the schema leaves as a bare string with no enum), but `limit` and `filter` are never explained — no default, no matching semantics, no paging behavior.

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 names the resource being listed ('Krita resources') and enumerates the valid types (preset/brushes, pattern, gradient, palette, brush, workspace), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clear but does not acknowledge overlapping siblings like list_brush_presets or list_workspace, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives, even though list_brush_presets and list_workspace in the sibling list clearly overlap with two of the advertised types. Usage is only implied by the enumeration of types.

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