godot_export_validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether export is actually run, whether files are modified, whether external tools are invoked, or what the validation result contains. 'Check' hints at a read-only operation but is not explicit.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the main action is front-loaded. It loses a point because its brevity omits useful context that could reasonably fit in one or two more phrases.

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 and no annotations, the description is too thin for safe invocation: it does not explain what happens when the tool runs, what the output looks like, or how it relates to sibling tools. The simple parameter list helps, but the behavioral and usage gaps remain significant.

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 schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including the preset default and the absolute-path requirement. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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 a specific verb ('check') and object ('dependency errors') and names the mechanism ('Godot export validation'). It is clear about the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like godot_get_errors or godot_check_all.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gdlint, gdformat, godot_check_all, or godot_get_errors. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and description.

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