add_new_resource

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

The verb 'Get information' clearly conveys that the tool is read-only and does not modify resources, which is essential given the lack of annotations. It does not explicitly mention 'no side effects,' but the phrasing is strong enough. The description also provides the valid 'kind' values, which is more of a parameter detail than behavior, but overall it gives sufficient 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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, an important usage note, and a parameter hint. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy, and the IMPORTANT and list formatting enhance readability.

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 one parameter, an explicit valid-value list, usage timing, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly state that this tool should not be used to actually provision resources, but 'Get information' implicitly conveys that. This is sufficient for the tool's scope.

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 provides no description for the required 'kind' parameter, leaving it ambiguous. The description fully compensates by listing the exact valid values: 'StorageBucket' and 'Secret'. This is crucial for correct usage and adds meaning beyond the 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's function: getting information about resource types that can be provisioned on Neptune. It identifies the specific resource types (StorageBucket and Secret) and differentiates itself from sibling tools that actually perform provisioning, such as provision_resources.

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 provides an explicit usage guideline: 'Always use this tool before modifying neptune.json.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools for actual resource provisioning, so it lacks full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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