list_shader_includes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('List') without explaining return format, path semantics, or any potential side effects. An agent would not know if the tool returns full paths, relative paths, or just filenames, nor any default recursion behavior (though the schema hints at 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 consists of a single sentence: 'List all .gdshaderinc files.' It is extremely concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for basic understanding, but it does not mention what the return value looks like (e.g., an array of paths). Given the lack of an output schema, the description could have provided a hint about the returned data structure, making this a minimal but not fully complete description.

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% for both parameters ('Subdirectory to search' and 'Search recursively'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states 'List all .gdshaderinc files.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('.gdshaderinc files'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_shaders' and 'read_shader_include'. The scope is unambiguous.

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 makes it clear this tool is for listing shader include files, which provides context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the file extension in the description differentiates it from 'list_shaders'. For a simple listing tool, this is sufficient.

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