list_autoloads

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

Annotations indicate read-only, and the description adds that no Godot process is required, enhancing transparency beyond the annotation.

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?

Three concise sentences front-loading the purpose, usage context, and return format. Every sentence earns its place without repetition.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, when to use, behavioral traits, and return format completely. No gaps remain.

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?

The sole parameter 'projectPath' is described in the schema; the description mentions 'reads project.godot directly', implying the path should be the project directory, but doesn't add substantial new meaning.

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 tool lists all registered autoloads with paths and singleton status, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_autoload, remove_autoload, and update_autoload.

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?

Explicitly suggests using this first when diagnosing headless failures and explains why broken autoloads matter. Doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternative tools, but context is clear.

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