List Arma Reforger Projects

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the scope ('under the configured roots'). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like performance implications or authentication needs beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences (one in English, one in German) with no wasted words. It front-loads the English version and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 read-only tool with no parameters, the description covers what it does and its scope. However, it lacks any indication of the output format (e.g., list of paths or names), which is a gap given no output schema is provided. The bilingual duplication adds no contextual completeness.

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 has no parameters, so the description has no burden to explain parameters. With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no parameter-related meaning—which is acceptable.

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 the verb 'discover' and specifies the resource '.gproj addons under the configured roots', clearly indicating a listing action. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'inspect_project' or 'read_project_file', which focus on single items or file reading.

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 like 'search_workspace' or 'inspect_project'. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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