list_scripts

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action (list files) and the summary information (class_name or extends), but does not disclose return format details, recursive behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple read-only listing tool.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and key details. No filler or redundant 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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks certain context: it does not specify whether listing is recursive (despite a 'recursive' parameter), nor does it clarify the exact return format beyond class_name or extends. Given no output schema, this is a gap, but the description still captures the core functionality.

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 coverage is 0% because the description does not explicitly reference any parameters. It mentions 'project path' which partially explains the 'path' parameter, but the 'recursive' parameter is completely omitted. The schema has no descriptions for parameters, so the description fails to fully compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: listing script files (.gd/.cs/.gdshader) under a project path, and specifies the output includes class_name or extends. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_animations or list_export_presets.

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, such as find_script_references or search_files. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be preferred.

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