get_project_files

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds transparency about skipped entries ('Skips hidden (dot-prefixed) entries and the .mcp directory') and the return type. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences: first states the core purpose, second covers parameters and behaviors. It is front-loaded, with no unnecessary words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides the return structure '{ name, type, path, extension?, children? } (nested tree)'. It also covers filtering and hidden entries. It is reasonably complete for a tool with 3 parameters, though could mention the default for maxDepth explicitly (already in schema).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value with examples (e.g., '["gd","tscn"]') and explains maxDepth behavior, but doesn't significantly exceed the schema's own descriptions.

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 'Return a recursive file tree of a Godot project' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_project by specifying 'Use to discover project structure when paths are unknown', making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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 explicitly says 'Use to discover project structure when paths are unknown' and explains parameters like extensions filter and maxDepth. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

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