Describe native GDevelop project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Inspect' aligns. It adds value by enumerating the exact components inspected, which informs the agent of the tool's scope. No mention of error behavior or edge cases, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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 11-word sentence, highly front-loaded and free of fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It mentions 'event counts' but doesn't specify whether other items are returned as full objects or counts, nor any prerequisites like the project being open.

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 single parameter projectId is only defined by schema type/format. The description provides no explanation of what projectId refers to or how to obtain it, despite low schema description coverage (0%), so the agent must infer meaning from the name alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and lists concrete resources (scenes, editable objects, behaviors, instances, variables, event counts), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that create, modify, or preview projects.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Inspect' and the sibling set, but the description does not state when to choose this over get_preview_status or other read tools.

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