list_lua_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scan scope (project .lua files) and default root behavior, but says nothing about recursion into subfolders, ordering, or the exact form of what is returned (paths vs names).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the rationale about multi-file projects is brief and earns its place by explaining why the tool matters. No redundancy or padding.

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 simple no-annotation, single-optional-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but leaves return-format details (recursion, path style) unspecified, which an agent would need to know before relying on the output.

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 optional dir parameter is already fully documented as relative to the source folder with root as default. The description adds no syntax or format nuance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (.lua files in the game project) with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings by tying its output to a downstream decision (what to edit and what to pass to reload_code), though it doesn't explicitly name what it is not.

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?

Gives clear context for when to call it: before deciding what to edit and before invoking reload_code, and warns against assuming everything lives in main.lua. No explicit when-not or exclusion conditions, but the intended workflow is unmistakable.

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