listResources

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly identifies the tool as read-only and lists the resource locations and optional filters. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset) or other side effects, but the core trait is well communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It omits details about pagination, return format, error conditions, and constraints like maximum results. The high parameter count demands more context than provided.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'optional filters'. It does not explain what each filter does or provide examples, leaving the schema to carry the burden.

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 purpose: 'list resources from override/modules/chitin with optional filters'. It includes a usage context ('Use when exploring installation contents') and declares it as read-only. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like kotor_list_modules or kotor_list_archive, which have narrower scopes.

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 a clear context ('Use when exploring installation contents') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives to prefer. Sibling tools with similar functions (e.g., kotor_list_modules, describeResource) are not compared, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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