list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but lacks behavioral details. It doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (though an output schema exists), or any performance considerations like pagination. The description is minimal and doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional filtering detail. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context on usage and parameters to be fully complete, especially for a tool in a set with many siblings.

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 only partially does. It mentions optional filtering by resource type, which aligns with the resource_type parameter, but doesn't explain project_dir or provide examples of resource types. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully cover the two parameters.

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 resources') and target ('in a project'), with optional filtering by resource type. It distinguishes from siblings like list_smali_directories or list_smali_files by focusing on general resources rather than specific file types, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose list_resources over get_resource_file for accessing specific resources or how it relates to search_in_files for finding content. The optional filtering is noted but without context on typical use cases.

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