list_visual_shaders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'List', implying a read-only operation, but gives no details about return format, scope (e.g., project root vs filesystem), or whether it includes file extensions or paths. This is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple nature (2 well-documented parameters, no output schema), the description covers the fundamental action but misses useful context such as what the output looks like (e.g., list of paths) and what specific file types count as 'VisualShader graph files'. It is adequate but leaves room for clarity.

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 100%: 'path' is documented as 'Subdirectory to search (default: root)' and 'recursive' as 'Search recursively'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which already adequately explains both parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the action 'List' and the resource 'VisualShader graph files', which distinguishes it from sibling list_shaders (general shaders) and read_visual_shader (reading a specific shader). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource specificity provides adequate differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_shaders or read_visual_shader. There is no mention of expected usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool name alone.

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