resources

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

Annotations already signal destructiveness (destructiveHint=true). The description adds the delete action but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., permanent deletion) or other behavioral traits like permissions or error handling. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 (three lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The use of a dash-list for actions is efficient, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating action descriptions) could improve clarity. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the four main actions and their required parameters, but lacks details on return values (e.g., what info returns) and error scenarios. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for an agent to understand expected outputs.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds value by mapping parameter requirements per action (e.g., list requires type and project_path). This clarifies usage beyond the schema's flat property 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 'Resource file management' and lists specific actions (list, info, delete, import_config), which unambiguously defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like animation or scenes by focusing on resource files.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools cover different domains (e.g., scenes, scripts), no guidance is provided on when to choose resources over others or when not to use it.

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