get_godot_export_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that by promising information. It adds useful context about the content areas (ports, curing steps, formats), though it does not disclose return structure or whether any side effects exist; with the annotation covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the type ('Info') and resource ('SuperMCP Godot pipeline') and then enumerates the covered topics compactly.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description gives enough context to set expectations about content. It could say more about the exact format of the return value, but the absence of an output schema and low complexity make the current description largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage by default, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no ambiguity to resolve.

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 identifies the resource ('SuperMCP Godot pipeline') and the kind of information available ('ports, curing steps, formats'), making it clear this is an informational tool. It does not name a sibling to distinguish from, but the subject matter separates it from the operational godot_* siblings.

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 phrase 'Info about...' implies it should be used when the agent needs pipeline reference details, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. There are no parameters or prerequisites to clarify further.

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