karea_list_resources

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the inclusion logic (directly assigned, linked to tasks, filed under folders) and mentions unfiled resources. This adds context beyond the schema's parameter description.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the purpose. Second sentence explains both modes. No filler. Front-loaded with key information.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both usage modes and inclusion criteria. It does not mention pagination or return format, but these are not critical for this simple list tool.

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 schema already describes projectId with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining what 'belonging to that project' entails (direct assignment, task links, folder names). This adds value 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?

Description clearly states 'List resources (text notes & files)' and explains the behavior with and without projectId. It distinguishes from siblings like karea_list_notes and karea_get_resource by specifying the scope and inclusion criteria.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use projectId vs omit it. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like karea_list_notes or karea_get_resource, though the behavior differentiation is implied.

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