Godot Script List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether the list returns full paths, whether it recurses into subdirectories, whether it includes disabled or commented scripts, or whether output is limited to project root. Basic read operation is implied but details are missing. As a read-only listing operation, the risk surface is low, which mitigates the lack of detail.

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 efficient sentence that states the tool's exact purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, specifying file extensions (.gd and .cs) and scope (project). There is nothing extraneous.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention output format (file paths relative to project root?), ordering (alphabetical?), or whether it includes nested directories. Given the sibling set includes godot_file_list and godot_file_read, knowing how script_list output could feed into script_read would be useful context but is absent.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly scopes the operation to .gd and .cs files in the project, which is the essential information an agent needs. With no params, the description's mention of file types serves as the functional config guidance.

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 verb (List) + resource (all .gd and .cs scripts) and the project scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_scene_list by specifying script file types. Not a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with godot_file_list, which could also list .gd/.cs files in the project, so some potential ambiguity remains regarding which tool is authoritative for the file listing.

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 it's for discovering scripts in the Godot project. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this vs godot_file_list (which lists files generally) or godot_scene_list. There's no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The context is reasonably clear but lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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