godot_check_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool performs lint, format, and export, but does not say whether 'format' may rewrite files, whether an export actually generates artifacts, whether steps stop on failure, or what the result/return looks like. This is a significant gap for a composite tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and scope immediately. The parenthetical enumeration of lint, format, and export is compact and informative with no wasted words.

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?

The tool is a composite of several behaviors, has no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry more context. It omits return values, side effects, execution order, and failure behavior, leaving an agent without enough information to reliably invoke it for a full project check.

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%, with descriptions for both 'project' and 'file' parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics about how the optional file parameter scopes the check or how the project root is used, so it stays at the baseline for high schema 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 states a specific action ('执行') on a specific resource ('Godot 项目检查') and enumerates the exact components: lint, format, and export. This distinguishes it as the aggregate check tool alongside siblings gdlint, gdformat, and godot_export_validate, since those correspond to individual pieces of the advertised check.

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 components list implies this tool is for a full combined check rather than running gdlint, gdformat, or godot_export_validate individually. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites like export presets or project setup.

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