list_input_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context that it reads project.godot and works without a running game, which goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately adds a practical usage tip, making it highly scannable.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, purpose, and a key operational constraint. It doesn't detail the return format, but the phrase 'list all input actions' adequately implies a list of action names, which is sufficient given the tool's low complexity.

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 schema already provides a complete description of projectPath (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of project.godot adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, which already indicates a Godot project directory.

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 primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all input actions defined in a project's project.godot (the InputMap).' It also situates the tool relative to a sibling by mentioning it's useful before using send_input, which differentiates it from other project-management tools.

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 gives a clear usage context ('Useful before using send_input') and a key constraint ('No running game required'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for the agent to select it appropriately.

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