script_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lacks details on recursion behavior, error handling (e.g., invalid path), or return format (e.g., full path vs. filename). The description is too sparse for a tool that reads filesystem data.

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 sentence of 15 words, efficiently stating the tool's action and key detail (language detection). It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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 listing tool, the description is mostly adequate, specifying file types and language detection. However, it lacks details on recursion depth, output format, and edge cases (e.g., empty directories). Given no output schema or annotations, these gaps prevent a higher score.

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% for the single parameter 'projectPath'. The description does not explain what the path should look like (absolute or relative), whether it must exist, or any constraints. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 it lists all .gd and .cs files in a Godot project directory with language detection. This distinguishes it from siblings such as 'scene_list' (lists scenes) and 'detect_language' (detects language of a single script).

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. For instance, it doesn't mention that 'detect_language' is for analyzing a single file's language, while 'script_list' additionally lists all scripts. An agent must infer usage context from the description alone.

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