run_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'capture output', which hints at read behavior, but lacks critical details: whether this starts a long-running process, requires specific permissions, has side effects like file changes, or handles errors. For a tool that likely executes code, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('run the Godot project') and adds a useful detail ('capture output') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool likely executes a project (a complex operation with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to explain return values. The description lacks details on execution mode, error handling, or output format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('projectPath' and optional 'scene'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these inputs are used to run the project. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples or constraints.

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 clearly states the action ('run') and target ('Godot project'), and mentions capturing output as an additional effect. It distinguishes from siblings like 'launch_editor' (which likely opens the editor UI) and 'stop_project' (which terminates execution). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_debug_output' which might retrieve logs without running.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for executing a project, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be valid or compiled), when to choose this over 'launch_editor' for testing, or if it's intended for headless runs versus interactive sessions.

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