list_dots_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses the data source (awesome-dots list) and that filtering is optional, which is useful. However, it says nothing about ordering, result volume, or whether unfiltered listing returns everything, which matters for a list tool with no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the optional modifier trailing. Nothing is wasted.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema needed, the description covers the source, scope, and filter adequately. The remaining gap is routing relative to its sibling search tool, which is not addressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented there, so the baseline is met. The description goes further by supplying concrete section-name examples (Official, News & Coverage, Tools & Integrations) that the schema does not, helping the agent choose a real filter value.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a well-scoped resource ('resources about OpenAI Dots from the awesome-dots list'), and clarifies the optional section filter. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_dots_resources, so an agent must guess how 'list' differs from 'search'.

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 hints at a browse-style call with an optional filter, but never states when to use this versus search_dots_resources. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance despite an obvious overlapping sibling.

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