list_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains that each call uses websocket (ws) to make the browser re-read IndexedDB for the latest data, and warns about stale memory. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not describe the return format or side effects.

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, with two sentences that directly state the purpose, the mechanism (ws re-read), and the key caveat (stale memory). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it returns (RESOURCE-kind coordinates), how it fetches data (ws re-read), and the important limitation (memory can be outdated). It does not specify the exact return format, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 it lists all exploration memory cells with kind=RESOURCE in IndexedDB, naming the specific resource (RESOURCE cells) and the context (exploration memory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_obstacles and get_all_cells, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage for viewing explored resource nodes and explicitly warns that the memory may be outdated and should not be treated as currently minable. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this tool instead of others, leaving some gap in usage guidance.

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