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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Lists') and scope ('all scripts'), but doesn't describe output format (e.g., list structure, pagination), error handling (e.g., invalid paths), or performance characteristics (e.g., recursion depth). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Lists' (action), 'all scripts' (scope), '.gd and .cs files' (specifics), 'Godot project directory' (context), and 'language detection' (added feature. No fluff or redundancy.

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 (listing files with language detection), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter semantics, output format, or behavioral details like error cases. While concise, it fails to provide enough context for reliable tool invocation in a Godot project environment.

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%, meaning the single parameter 'projectPath' has no documentation in the schema. The description doesn't mention this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'projectPath' should be (e.g., absolute path, relative path, Godot project root) or provide examples, leaving the agent to guess.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all scripts (.gd and .cs files) in a Godot project directory'), and adds the specific detail of 'language detection'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'script_info' (detailed info on one script) and 'script_create' (creation tool). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'scene_list' or 'project_list', which might also list project contents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'script_list' over 'scene_list' (for scenes vs scripts) or 'project_info' (for general project metadata), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid project path. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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