list_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds file-type scope and that output is relative to project_path, but does not disclose whether traversal is recursive, whether directories are included, or what the return format looks like.

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?

One clean, grammatically straightforward sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and every clause adds relevant detail.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only tool, but incomplete on return details: there is no output schema, and the description does not state whether subfolders are scanned or how results are presented. An agent needs this to trust the listing's completeness.

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 describes project_path as 'Absolute path to the Godot project folder', reaching 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter meaning; 'relative to project_path' clarifies the output base, not the parameter itself.

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?

Describes a specific verb ('Lists') and resource (scenes, scripts, and resources in a Godot project folder), with precise file extensions (.tscn/.gd/.tres/.res). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like read_scene or create_scene.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The purpose implies it is for enumerating project files, but it doesn't mention when to prefer this over editor_get_scene_tree or other related tools.

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