List Godot projects in workspace

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it searches for project.godot files under the sandbox and lists workspace root plus {root, name} entries. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, then gives a focused usage condition and a compact return summary. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant or tangential content.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden on the description. Schema coverage is 100% by having an empty properties object. The description's mention of the return shape supports understanding the tool's semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('every Godot project'), and an explicit scope ('under the MCP sandbox directory'). It also notes the meaningful distinction from needing to pick among several games, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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 gives explicit conditions for use: 'when the MCP process cwd is not inside a project or you need to pick among several games.' This provides a clear context although it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.

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