resources

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by naming the specific destructive action ('delete') and providing a structured overview. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 using a list format with actions and parameter hints. It is front-loaded with the title and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. One could argue for 5, but the brevity sacrifices some nuance.

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 lack of an output schema and the presence of four distinct actions, the description provides a reasonable overview of each action's purpose and parameters. It does not explain return values or error conditions, but for a file management tool, the provided information is sufficient for basic usage.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing actions with their required and optional parameters (e.g., 'list (-> type, project_path)'), specifying the type enum for filtering, and indicating parameter order. This helps the agent understand parameter usage in context.

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 'Resource file management' and lists four actions (list, info, delete, import_config) with specific verbs and resource context. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which target specific domains (e.g., audio, animation) by focusing on general resource file operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but lacks context about prerequisites, fallback options, or when to choose 'resources' over siblings like 'audio' or 'scenes'. Use cases are implied but not stated.

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