arcana_add_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action (adding a resource) but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., path existence), or reversibility. The hint about auto-determination for 'to' is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 extremely concise with a one-line summary and a three-line Args block. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is adequate but misses key context. It does not mention return values (output schema exists), prerequisites, or how it interacts with sibling tools like arcana_ls or arcana_stat. The simple task requires slightly more detail for full completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds basic meaning for each parameter (path as file/directory to index, to as target URI, reason as justification). However, it lacks format constraints or detailed semantics, providing only minimal improvement over raw schema.

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 adds a file or directory as a resource into the context database. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like arcana_add_memory or arcana_mkdir.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter description for 'to' notes it is auto-determined if empty, there is no explicit context for when to use arcana_add_resource over siblings like arcana_add_memory or arcana_mkdir.

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