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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: validation errors block export, and custom game code is the user's responsibility. The word 'choose the starting map/player' is mildly ambiguous against readOnlyHint but reads as providing review inputs rather than mutating state, so it is not a hard contradiction.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler, and the cost signal 'FREE' is front-loaded so an agent sees it immediately. Slightly compressed given it packs name, purpose, params and caveats into one long compound sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what the review returns, but it only says what is inspected and that errors block export. It does not describe the result shape (per-map status, dependency report, compatibility findings), leaving an agent guessing at the review 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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps 'starting map/player' to startMapId/playerCharacterId and names the Phaser/Godot/Unity engine choices, covering the concepts of all four params loosely, but adds no format or constraint detail (e.g. what a valid id looks like, if engine selection is exclusive).

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 names a concrete verb set (check/choose/inspect) and resources (maps, character and asset dependencies, target-runtime compatibility) and frames the tool as a pre-download review. It distinguishes itself somewhat from the export/command siblings by emphasizing review before download, though the boundary with get_project_export_command and start_project_export is not stated explicitly.

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?

It implies the usage context ('before downloading an editable complete project') and flags cost with 'FREE', which helps an agent decide. However, it never names the alternative tools (start_project_export, get_project_export_command, get_project_export_status) or states when a review is required versus skippable, leaving the routing to inference.

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