list_projects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Scan directory' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of project paths), whether it looks for project.godot files, or any side effects. It discloses virtually no behavioral traits beyond the basic scan concept.

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 sentence that is clear and to the point. It is not bloated or unnecessarily verbose. However, it is so minimal that it veers toward under-specification rather than concise completeness, missing important details like output and behavior. It earns its place but could be enriched without losing brevity.

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 no output schema, so the description is responsible for explaining return values. It doesn't. It also fails to mention that recursive search is enabled by default or what constitutes a Godot project. Given the schema's limited annotations and the absence of output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and results.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents both parameters (directory and recursive). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't mention parameters, but the schema already does.

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 'Scan directory for Godot projects' uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('directory'), and clearly identifies the object ('Godot projects'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that target other assets like scenes or scripts, though it could be more explicit about what constitutes a Godot project (e.g., project.godot file).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_project_files or list_scenes. It doesn't state any prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over similar ones. Usage is only implicitly understood from the tool's name and description.

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