list_player_resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond repeating the GET/read nature, such as authentication needs, response format implications, 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 two short lines: a human-readable summary and the exact endpoint. Both earn their place, and there is no filler or redundancy beyond acceptable restatement.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only operation with an output schema and strong annotations, this is nearly complete. The main gap is the lack of differentiation from similarly named resource-listing siblings, but the endpoint path helps disambiguate.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema leaves nothing undocumented. With no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Client Resources' with the explicit endpoint 'GET /player/resources'. It is clear what operation is performed, though it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_resources or list_resources_2.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_resources, list_security_resources, or list_statistics_resources. The description provides the endpoint but no usage context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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