resources

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

The description lists actions including delete (destructive) and others (read-only), which aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true). However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 with a structured list of actions and parameters. It front-loads the main purpose and includes only necessary information. Minimal waste.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers the core actions adequately. However, it lacks details on error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., valid project path), and does not elaborate on 'import_config' beyond 'view import settings'. It is functionally complete but could be richer.

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 description adds meaning by mapping each action to its required/optional parameters (e.g., 'list (-> type, project_path)'), which is not explicit in the schema. This helps the agent understand which parameters apply to which action, supplementing the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool manages resource files and lists four actions (list, info, delete, import_config). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'audio' or 'animation', which likely handle specific resource types.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or context. The description only lists actions but does not help the agent decide which tool to use for which scenario.

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