godot_list_project_files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing, but it does not contradict annotations. It could have mentioned output format or side effects, but those are not required given annotations.

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 clear sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core function.

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?

Given the tool has four parameters (directory, recursive, response_format, extension_filter) and an output schema, the description only partially addresses them. It does not mention directory, recursive, or response_format, making the tool under-specified for an agent to use correctly without opening the schema.

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 description mentions 'matching patterns and extensions' which hints at the extension_filter parameter, but it ignores directory, recursive, and response_format. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate for all parameters, but it does not.

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 the action (list), resource (files in the Godot project tree), and scope (matching patterns and extensions). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools such as godot_get_texture_info or godot_audit_assets.

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 usage for filtering files by patterns/extensions but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It lacks direct comparisons or conditions (e.g., 'use this instead of X when...') that would clearly guide selection.

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