manage_autoloads

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

Annotations provide only the title, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions add/remove (destructive) and list (read-only), but lacks detail on side effects, permissions, or impact on project state. For example, removing an autoload might break references.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with key actions. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It doesn't mention return format for 'list' action, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., project must exist). However, given the tool's simplicity, it covers core purpose.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Autoload name (required for add/remove)'). The description adds minimal value beyond schema; baseline 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 states 'Add, remove, or list autoloads in a Godot project' with specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools as there is no other autoload management tool.

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 lists possible actions but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., modifying project settings directly). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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