get_resource_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose permissions, error handling, rate limits, or output format (though an output schema exists). The description adds no context beyond the basic action, leaving gaps for a tool with 3 required parameters.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, though brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 3 required parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for a tool in a complex server with many siblings like APK and resource management.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'project_dir', 'resource_name', or 'resource_type' mean, their formats, or examples. With 3 undocumented parameters, this fails to provide necessary semantics beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 'Get content of a specific resource file' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('resource file'), but it's vague about what 'content' entails (e.g., text, binary, metadata) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'list_resources' or 'modify_resource_file'. It avoids tautology by not restating the name, but lacks specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project directory), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_resources' for browsing or 'modify_resource_file' for editing. Usage is implied only by the description's focus on retrieval.

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