list_projects

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The 'Find' wording signals a read-only search and the recursive flag describes traversal, but the description does not disclose potential costs of scanning large trees, detection criteria, or whether the search is local filesystem-only.

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 two tight sentences followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded before parameter details.

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 two-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, the essential call semantics are covered: what to search, where, and whether to recurse. It does not add sibling differentiation or edge-case behavior, but the supplied output schema and schema defaults fill most remaining gaps.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by defining both parameters: directory is 'Root directory to search' and recursive is 'If True, search all subdirectories.' This adds clear operational meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 opens with a specific directive, 'Find Godot projects under a directory,' which names the verb, resource, and search scope. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like launch_editor, run_project, or get_project_info, which concern execution or project details rather than discovery.

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 the use case: call this when you need to locate Godot projects within a directory tree. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention an alternative for inspecting a single project, so the usage context is only implicit.

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