describeResource

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Read-only' and 'using resolution order' but does not explain the default order, what happens if the resource is not found, or how the summary is returned (e.g., format). This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with usage. However, a structured format (e.g., listing key behaviors) could improve clarity without adding verbosity.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to specify output format, default resolution order, error handling, or what constitutes a 'short summary', leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 only 25% (only 'order' has a description). The description does not explain the required parameters (game, resref, restype) beyond the context of the tool purpose. For example, valid values for restype or resref format are not clarified.

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 verb ('short summary'), the resource types (GFF, TLK, 2DA), and the method (resolution order). It distinguishes itself from siblings that provide raw data (e.g., kotor_read_2da) by focusing on summarization.

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 explicitly says 'Use when you need a short summary', giving clear context for use. It also marks the tool as read-only, implying no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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