tool_list_definitions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses scope ('scans all .rpy files') and the shape of the result, and the word 'Inventory'/'Scans' signals a non-mutating operation, but it never states read-only behavior, side effects, or performance cost explicitly.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by scope, use case, and Args/Returns blocks. The Returns section mildly duplicates the enumeration in the opening sentence, but overall it is well-organized with little waste.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully documents the return keys, and it defines the single required parameter. For a simple read-only inventory tool this covers what an agent needs, with only the safety profile left unstated.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does: 'project_path: Absolute path to the Ren'Py project root directory' adds the absolute-path requirement and the specific directory level, which the bare string schema does not convey.

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 and resource ('Inventory all declarations in a Ren'Py project') and enumerates exactly which declaration types are returned, so the agent knows what it produces. It is distinguishable from siblings like tool_list_labels or tool_read_script, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

'Useful for understanding project structure without reading every file' implies a use case and implicitly positions it against file-reading siblings, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to or named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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