fgui_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool lists resources and returns a resource list, which is sufficient for a simple read operation, but it does not disclose sorting, pagination, error behavior, or side effects. Nothing in the description contradicts expected behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by compact argument definitions and a return note. It is appropriately sized, though the argument bullets largely restate schema names rather than adding deep explanation.

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 two-parameter list tool with an output schema available, the description is mostly complete: it names the package, the optional filter, and the return type. Minor gaps are the lack of usage context versus sibling tools and no mention of what happens when a package does not exist.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning: package_name is clarified as 'package name', and resource_type gains explicit allowed values (component/image/font/folder) plus the behavior of omitting it to list all resources. This goes meaningfully beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('列出包内的资源' — list resources in a package) and its scope. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fgui_list_items or fgui_list_packages.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The optional resource_type filter is documented, but there is no context about choosing between this and sibling list-type tools.

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