List resources

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating it skips .godot/ and .gdignore-marked folders. This is useful for understanding what resources are included or excluded. No contradictions 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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every part adds value.

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 complexity and comprehensive parameter schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It lacks explicit return format details, but the response_format parameter provides guidance. Minor gap in explaining output structure.

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 the description adds minimal extra meaning. It mentions 'optionally filtered by extension' which matches the extension parameter, but does not provide additional semantic details beyond the schema.

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 project resources as res:// paths, with optional extension filtering. The verb 'List' and resource type are explicit, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'godot_list_addons' or 'list_project_files'.

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 mentions optional extension filtering and that it skips .godot/ and .gdignore-marked folders, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, which limits guidance for the agent.

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