godot_get_project_structure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a 'nested folder/file view,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not specify output format, potential errors, performance considerations, or system interactions. This leaves gaps for a tool that interacts with file systems.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 complexity of file system interaction and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format (e.g., JSON structure), error handling, or limitations like file size or permissions, which are critical for a tool that navigates project directories.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a hierarchical output structure. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose: 'Return a nested folder/file view of a Godot project or one of its subfolders.' It specifies the verb ('return'), resource ('folder/file view'), and scope ('Godot project or subfolders'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'godot_list_resources' or 'godot_get_scene_tree', which might also provide structural information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for file system exploration versus resource listing or scene tree inspection. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.

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