discover_frontend_resources

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

The annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are paginated and include provenance, which goes beyond the annotations and input schema. It does not contradict any annotations and provides a clear sense of what the tool returns.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second lists supported filters and return characteristics, efficiently packing information without unnecessary detail.

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 read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides a solid overview: what it browses, what filters are available, and that results are paginated with provenance. However, parameter semantics remain thin, and the description could briefly hint at how filters compose, though this is partly mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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?

With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries a heavy responsibility. However, it merely lists the parameter names (category/kind, framework, style/tags, etc.) without explaining their meanings, expected values, or how they interact. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 specific verbs ('Browse and filter') and a well-defined resource type ('indexed frontend resources' with components, patterns, libraries). It also lists the supported filter dimensions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that target narrower categories like find_components or find_animation_patterns.

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 implies a general browsing/filtering use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_components or search_frontend_knowledge. It does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without clear exclusions.

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