list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, whether it scans the filesystem, or if it modifies any state. The agent is left to infer that it only lists, but side effects are not clarified.

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, which is concise. However, it is structured as a basic verb phrase without additional context. For a tool with two parameters, it is minimally adequate but not efficiently front-loading key details like the recursive option.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description does not mention the return format or what constitutes a 'Godot project' (e.g., presence of a 'project.godot' file). Without an output schema, the agent lacks information about what to expect from the call.

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 100% (both 'directory' and 'recursive' have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and no extra value is provided.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Godot projects'). It also specifies the scope ('in a directory'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_scripts' or 'get_project_info', which also involve listing or retrieving project-related data.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where recursive search is beneficial, or when to use other tools (e.g., 'get_project_info' for details on a specific project).

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