godot_list_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists resources but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires read permissions, how it handles large projects (e.g., pagination or performance limits), what format the output takes, or if it's a safe read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 listing resources in a project (which could involve many file types and structures), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid paths or details on resource filtering. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 specific action ('List') and enumerates the exact resource types ('saved scripts, shaders, scenes, and textures') along with the scope ('in a Godot project or one of its subfolders'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_get_project_structure or godot_get_scene_tree by focusing on resource listing rather than structural or hierarchical 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 implies usage for listing resources within a Godot project context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_get_project_structure (which might provide broader project metadata) or godot_search_docs (for documentation). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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