robot_list_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explicitly discloses the key behavioral trait: no execution occurs. It clearly signals a safe, read-only operation. It does not describe file discovery behavior or error conditions, but the main side-effect concern is addressed.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the important non-execution qualifier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. However, with zero schema parameter descriptions and no mention of path/workspace roles, the description is not fully complete for correct invocation, even though both parameters are optional with defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'path' and 'workspace' parameters. It does not mention either parameter, leaving their meaning and relationship entirely to the agent's guess.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Robot resource files, keywords, and imports'), and an explicit qualifier ('without executing them'). This distinguishes it from siblings like robot_run, robot_dry_run, and especially robot_list_tests.

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 phrase 'without executing them' implies this is for static inspection rather than execution, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over robot_parse_results or robot_list_tests. Sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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