list_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic list operation, omitting whether the operation is read-only, what counts as a 'resource', how filtering behaves with multiple extensions, or what the return format looks like. The lack of such context is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler or redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and structurally sound.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how it differs from similar tools like list_files. It does neither. The optional parameters (path, extensions) lack contextual explanation. For a relatively simple tool, this is under-specified but not absolutely minimal.

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 33% (only projectPath is described). The description adds meaning for extensions via 'filtered by extension', but says nothing about path or projectPath semantics beyond the schema. With low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it only partially does.

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 action (list) and resource (project resources) with a filter (by extension). It is not a tautology and gives a specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_files or list_scenes, which also list project-related items.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like list_files, list_scenes, and search_project overlap conceptually, but the description gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred. This leaves the agent without a basis for choosing it.

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