list_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's burden is lowered. However, the description adds valuable behavioral details such as recursive searching behavior (skipping hidden directories), default scope, and return format including empty array handling. These go beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, with two main sentences plus a note on recursive behavior and return format. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary information without superfluous text.

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 and that the input schema covers all parameters, the description provides complete context: input parameter behavior, output format, and usage scenarios. It does not have an output schema, but the return format is clearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant context for the recursive parameter, explaining that it descends into subdirectories while skipping hidden ones, and that when false it checks only the directory and its immediate children. This is more informative than the schema's simple description.

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 finds Godot projects by locating project.godot files. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_project_info by specifying when each should be used, providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 states to use this tool for discovering available projects when the user has not specified one, and to use get_project_info for inspecting a known project. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an alternative.

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