list_game_references

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered and the description only needs to add context. It does add useful scope detail (which three folder trees are scanned and that reference status is computed), but says nothing about behavior when game_dir is unset, how missing folders or unreadable DLLs are handled, or how many results come back. Solid but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The trailing filter enumeration is dense and earns its place, though it reads as a raw value dump rather than integrated guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, which lowers the burden. However, with five optional parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description should have compensated for the undocumented inputs (notably game_dir, project defaults, and only_missing) and does not.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only explains one of five parameters. The filter vocabulary and the name-substring option are genuinely helpful additions, but limit, project, game_dir, and only_missing are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the most behavior-changing flag (only_missing) opaque.

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 names a specific verb and resource (list DLLs) plus the exact scope scanned: the game's Managed/Libs/Plugins folders. It also states what is reported (versions and whether the project already references them), which distinguishes it from the mutation siblings add/copy/remove_game_references. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as the alternative path.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: as a read-only enumeration it is clearly the inspection step before add/remove_game_references, and the enumerated filter values hint at inspection workflows. There is no explicit "use this when..." clause, no exclusions, and no guidance on when the sibling reference tools should be chosen instead.

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