list_project_files

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the listing action and file categories. It does not state whether the listing is recursive, whether it is read-only, how invalid project paths are handled, or the shape of the returned results.

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 front-loads the core action and scope. There is no redundant or tangential content.

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 with a fully documented schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It omits behavior details like recursion and output format, and it does not position the tool relative to siblings, which an agent would need for correct invocation in ambiguous situations.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to restate them. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters themselves; the categories mentioned map loosely to the type enum but do not clarify the pattern or projectPath semantics.

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 identifies the resource (Godot project files across scenes, scripts, resources, and shaders), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or run_project. However, the enum in the schema does not include a 'shader' category, so the description slightly overstates the available filter options.

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 such as list_projects or get_project_info. It also does not mention recommended scenarios, prerequisites, or conditions under which the pattern/type filters should be used.

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