List Scene Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds a small behavioral detail (only .tscn files, scoped to the Godot project) beyond the annotations, but it doesn't disclose return format details, recursion behavior, error handling, or whether hidden/generated files are excluded. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is reasonable.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place. Slightly more detail about the strict .tscn filtering could be useful, but it is not bloated.

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 list tool with an output schema, readOnlyHint=true, and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it doesn't mention whether subdirectories are recursed, whether the output is sorted, or what the output schema actually contains. These are not critical for calling the tool, but an agent would benefit from knowing the exact behavior.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (relative and project_path). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides clear defaults and one-line explanations. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('list') and resource ('.tscn scene files in the Godot project'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like godot_list_scripts or godot_list_resources, but the file-type mention provides some distinction.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The description implies the tool is for listing scene files, but it doesn't state when to prefer it over godot_get_project_files, godot_list_resources, or godot_find_by_pattern. The readOnlyHint and sibling names provide some context, but the description itself lacks explicit usage guidance.

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