list_projects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden, but it only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the tool reads recursively, what constitutes a 'project', the return format, or any side effects. The behavior is minimally implied but not explicitly described.

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 very concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it is slightly under-specified, which costs a point in structure since it prioritizes brevity over necessary detail.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should clarify return values and parameter constraints. It fails to do so: no mention of output shape, the meaning of maxDepth, or any behavioral details, making it an incomplete description for effective tool use.

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 50%: 'root' has a description, but 'maxDepth' is undocumented in both schema and description. The tool description adds no parameter information, leaving the meaning and effect of maxDepth unclear, especially important given it controls recursion depth.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('Godot projects') and scoping ('below a directory'), making the core purpose distinguishable from siblings like list_files. It doesn't explicitly state how projects are identified (e.g., by project.godot), but it is reasonably clear for the target domain.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_project or list_files. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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