Godot Project Tree

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. 'Truncation details' hints at output-limiting behavior but doesn't specify threshold behaviors, whether results are sorted, how ignores are configured, or what the default behavior is with no parameters supplied. The description is vague about what the user would actually observe.

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 front-loads the core action (list project tree) and hints at key behaviors (ignore, truncation). Could arguably add slightly more behavioral detail, but it is efficient and to the point.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, this description should do more work. The tool has zero required parameters, so the behavior with defaults is ambiguous. The two parameters handle depth and entry limits but the tool's output format, ordering, and the meaning of 'ignore support' remain unexplained, making it incomplete for a tool with this much ambiguity.

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% — both maxDepth and maxEntries are described in the schema. The description mentions 'truncation details' which loosely maps to maxEntries, and 'ignore support' hints at traversal behavior, but it adds minimal meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List the project tree with ignore support and truncation details' which identifies the resource (project tree) and verb (list). However, it's somewhat ambiguous relative to siblings like godot_scene_get_tree and godot_runtime_tree — it doesn't clarify what differentiates a 'project tree' from a 'scene tree' or 'runtime tree', which would be important for tool selection.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'ignore support and truncation details' but doesn't explain what that means in practice or when truncation might occur. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given despite a large sibling set with similar tree-related tools.

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