list_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List files in the Godot project' without mentioning recursion, file type filters, whether directories are included, or the output format. This lacks the transparency needed for a listing operation.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it lacks any structural elements like parameter explanations or usage notes, and the brevity leads to under-specification rather than effective clarity.

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 tool with no output schema and minimal parameter schema, the description should explain what 'list files' returns (e.g., full paths, names, recursive listing). It does not, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 0% and the description makes no mention of the 'dir_path' parameter or its default behavior. The agent is left without any explanation of how to specify a directory or that it defaults to 'res://', so the description adds zero value beyond the bare schema field name.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in the Godot project'), making the basic purpose clear. It does not elaborate on the scope or format, and among sibling tools like search_project or get_resource_info, it is distinct enough but could benefit from clarifying that it lists all project files.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_project or get_resource_info. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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