Wick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what information is returned (project names, paths, C# support, scene/script counts), but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if rootPath is invalid), performance (e.g., recursion depth), or output format (e.g., JSON structure).

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, input, and output without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (discovery with multiple data points), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It outlines the return data but lacks specifics on format, error cases, or limitations, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by specifying that 'rootPath' is the directory to search for Godot projects. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid path formats or permissions required.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Discovers') and resources ('Godot projects under a given root directory'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'project_info' by focusing on discovery across multiple projects rather than details of a single project.

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 for discovering projects in a directory, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'project_info' (for details on a specific project) or 'scene_list' (for scenes within a project). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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