list_autoloads

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

The annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' already indicates the tool is read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads 'project.godot' directly without requiring a Godot process, and returns a specific array structure. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the main action and follows with usage guidance and key behavioral details.

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 simple input schema (one parameter), full annotation coverage, and the tool's straightforward purpose, the description fully covers functionality, usage context, behavior, and return format. No output schema exists, but the return format is explicitly described.

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?

There is only one parameter (projectPath) with full schema coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Path to the Godot project directory'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List all registered autoloads' and specifies the returned fields (name, path, singleton). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_autoload, remove_autoload, and update_autoload by indicating it is a read-only listing operation.

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 advises using this tool 'first when diagnosing headless failures' and explains why (broken autoloads crash headless ops). It also mentions that no Godot process is required, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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