Resource Manager

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions CRUD and a few action constraints (e.g., switch is framework-only), but does not describe side effects such as destructive deletes, persistence, versioning, or consequences of reload/rollback/clear. Many actions from the schema are absent, so the agent remains unaware of their behavior.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured, with a clear title, usage line, resource types, actions, and a single special-case instruction. Each line adds necessary information without filler, and the layout makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (41 parameters, 14 actions, 4 resource types), the description is far from complete. It omits the 'checkpoint' resource type and advanced actions such as analyze_type, analyze_gates, history, rollback, compare, and clear. No output schema exists, so the description should cover more of the tool's capabilities.

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 schema has 41 parameters with zero description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It does clarify resource_type by defining prompt, gate, and framework, and it explains some action constraints, but the overwhelming majority of parameters (id, name, gates, limit, version, etc.) remain undocumented. The description only partially addresses the required parameters.

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 immediately establishes a specific purpose: 'Unified CRUD for prompts, gates, and frameworks.' It names concrete resource types and lists actions, making it clear this is a management tool for these entities. The title and usage string further reinforce the verb-resource relationship.

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 provides a usage template and enumerates resource types and actions, giving clear context for how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose resource_manager over sibling tools like prompt_engine or system_control, nor does it mention when not to use it. The special case for action:'guide' is a helpful guideline but limited.

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