Godot Scene List

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that it lists .tscn scene files project-wide, which conveys it's likely a read-only operation, but doesn't state whether it scans recursively, whether results are sorted, or what happens on empty/error conditions. It's a simple listing tool so minimal behavior disclosure may be acceptable, but the exact traversal scope (recursive vs top-level) is unspecified.

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 that communicates the tool's purpose without any waste. Every word earns its place. Perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'List' immediately establishing the action.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the resource type (.tscn), scope (project), and action (list). Given the simplicity of the tool, this level of detail is sufficient, though it could mention return format or sorting behavior for extra clarity.

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 tool has zero parameters (100% schema coverage with no params), so per the rubric a baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately confirms the parameter-free nature by not referencing any inputs. There's nothing more the description could add about parameters since none exist.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (.tscn scene files) with a clear scope ('in the project'). It distinguishes this from file listing tools (godot_file_list), script listings (godot_script_list), and the project tree (godot_project_tree). It's clear but doesn't elaborate on output format or differentiate explicitly from siblings like godot_scene_get_node.

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 context via the tool name and description (listing scene files), but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 34 sibling tools including similar listing tools (godot_file_list, godot_script_list, godot_project_tree), explicit differentiation would help, though the .tscn scope is reasonably self-evident.

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