Godot File List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (lists files) but doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns a flat list vs. structured output, whether it sorts entries, whether it includes hidden files, or what happens with invalid paths. For a listing tool, some return-format context would be valuable.

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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for a simple listing tool. It earns its place by adding the project-relative scoping detail, though it could add a brief note about recursive behavior without becoming bloated.

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 two-parameter file listing tool, the description touches the essential behavior but leaves gaps. With no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what the recursion flag does and what the return looks like. It's minimally viable but incomplete given zero annotation and schema support.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (path and recursive). The description implies 'path' is a folder path but doesn't explain the default '.', whether only folders are valid (as opposed to files), or how 'recursive' affects output. The description adds minimal value over the bare schema parameter names and defaults.

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 'List files or directories in a project-relative folder' states the verb (list), the resource (files/directories), and the scope (project-relative folder). It clearly distinguishes from sibling read tools like godot_file_read (single file) and godot_script_list (scripts only). However, it doesn't clarify the distinction from godot_project_tree or godot_project_scan which may overlap in purpose.

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?

It implies usage for listing project files within a folder, and the project-relative scoping gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like godot_project_tree, godot_project_scan, or godot_project_search, nor does it mention when not to use it. Some implied guidance but no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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