ed_list_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context about the output structure (grouped by category, includes file type and size), which is useful beyond the annotations and consistent with them. It does not contradict the 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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Resources page'). Every word adds value, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no output schema, the description provides enough context about the return content (grouped by category, file type and size) and the resource types. However, it does not mention response_format or pagination, but the schema covers response_format. For a simple list tool with good annotations, this is nearly complete, though it could have explicitly referenced the sibling download tool for clarity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters (course_id, response_format) are already fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists resources (讲义、链接、文件) for an Ed course, with grouping and metadata. It specifies a distinct resource type ('Resources page') and implies a read/list operation, distinguishing it from siblings like ed_download_resource and ed_list_lessons.

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 gives a clear context (listing resources for an Ed course) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor mention the sibling ed_download_resource for downloading. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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