list_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavior like recursion defaults, output format, whether it returns absolute paths, or any permissions required. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified, which prevents a perfect score — conciseness should not come at the cost of essential context.

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 listing tool, the description is minimally viable but incomplete. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least mention return format or scoping. The parameter descriptions help, but the overall context is sparse given the large sibling toolset.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for path, recursive, and type_filter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond 'all resource files', so it neither compensates nor detracts from the schema's already adequate parameter documentation.

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 'List all resource files' uses a specific verb and resource, and the name is clear. However, it does not distinguish from numerous sibling list tools like list_project_files, list_scenes, or list_textures, leaving ambiguity about what exactly constitutes a 'resource file'.

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. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar tools such as list_project_files or editor_list_filesystem.

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