fgui_list_items

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (list resources) and the filtering capability, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only, nor does it describe potential errors (e.g., package not found) or any limitations. The behavior is predictable but not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, with the filtering capability added at the end. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous 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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks context about the broader workflow (e.g., that this is a read-only inspection step before editing) and does not explain the valid values for item_type or the structure of the output. It covers the basics but leaves gaps for an agent to fully understand how and when to invoke it.

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 descriptions coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that 'package_name' refers to the specified package ('指定包') and that 'item_type' is used for filtering by FairyGUI resource type. This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw property names, though it does not enumerate valid item_type values.

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 verb '列出' (list) and the resource '指定包中的资源' (resources in the specified package), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fgui_list_packages which lists packages. It also mentions the optional filtering by resource type, making the purpose specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It neither names sibling tools for comparison nor explains typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer when listing is appropriate.

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