Get All Project Files

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

The description merely restates the title and adds no behavioral context beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already conveys. It does not mention what kind of information is returned, how project_path behaves when null, or how include_assets affects results.

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 with no filler or irrelevant details. It is front-loaded and easily scannable, though it is so terse that it adds little beyond the tool's title.

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 listing tool, the description, schema, annotations, and output schema together are minimally sufficient. However, the lack of usage context and sibling differentiation leaves an agent uncertain about why this tool exists alongside several similar list-oriented tools.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents project_path and include_assets. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('all files in the project'), making the tool's basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as godot_list_resources or godot_list_scripts, but the broad 'all files' scope is reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling listing tools. There are no alternatives mentioned, no exclusions, and no context for choosing this over godot_list_resources, godot_find_assets, or similar tools.

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