list_shaders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it doesn't disclose that the search is recursive by default or that it operates from the project root unless a path is provided. The schema contains these details, but the description adds little beyond the core action.

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, succinct sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the schema's coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not mention the return format (e.g., a list of file paths) or the search scope (project root, subdirectories). Since there is no output schema, the description should have briefly explained expected output.

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 (path and recursive), each with descriptive defaults. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema adequately documents them, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'List all .gdshader files' uses a specific verb (list) and resource (.gdshader files), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_shader_includes (which lists .gdshaderinc files) and list_visual_shaders. It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and description, but there's no mention of exclusions or context (e.g., 'for shader includes, use list_shader_includes').

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