aptos_get_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and gives no details about read-only nature, pagination via the limit parameter, error handling, or that resources are on-chain Move resources. This is a minimal and incomplete behavioral picture for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 annotations and output schema, plus many similar Aptos sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what constitutes a 'resource', how the response is structured, or how this tool differs from related getters, making it incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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 input schema covers both parameters (address and limit) with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 'Get all resources owned by an account' uses a specific verb ('get'), a clear resource type ('resources'), and a scope ('owned by an account'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like aptos_get_balance and aptos_get_modules at a glance.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aptos_get_modules or aptos_view_function. It does not mention any exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or recommended contexts, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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