list_autoloads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in annotations: it requires no Godot process and reads project.godot directly, and it explains the consequence of broken autoloads. It could go further on failure/error behavior, but this is solid.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then why to use it, then operational notes, then return shape. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes a return shape '[{ name, path, singleton }]' and covers usage rationale, operational requirements, and data source. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single projectPath parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds that no Godot process is needed, implying the call is lightweight and file-based, which is useful context beyond the parameter type.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List all registered autoloads in a project') and adds scope details (paths, singleton status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like add_autoload/remove_autoload/update_autoload by being the read/list 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?

Explicitly says 'Use first when diagnosing headless failures' and explains why (broken autoloads crash all headless ops). This tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right first step, which is strong usage guidance.

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