list_projects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without revealing how projects are identified (e.g., via project.godot files), whether the operation is non-destructive (though implied), or what output format to expect. This lack of detail leaves the agent without important behavioral context.

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 sentence with no filler words, directly conveying the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the essential information.

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, the description combined with the well-documented schema is adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral detail (e.g., how projects are determined, output structure), so an agent may need to infer or probe. The absence of an output schema further increases the need for description-level 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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (directory and recursive) with 100% coverage. The description adds no information about parameter usage or semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'List Godot projects in a directory' clearly specifies the action (list), the resource (Godot projects), and the scope (a directory). It distinguishes from siblings like launch_editor or run_project which deal with running/launching 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. An agent gets no context for choosing this over sibling tools beyond the inferred meaning of the name.

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