godot_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. “Inspect” implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose permissions, side effects, return contents, or whether any project configuration is affected. It provides almost no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 definition is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses and is front-loaded with the core action. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though the content itself remains thin.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain enough for an agent to know what project information will be returned. It does not describe whether the result contains paths, settings, version data, or editor state, leaving the tool's utility ambiguous. This is insufficient for confident selection among many sibling inspection tools.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for an input schema gap.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: inspecting the configured Godot project. However, “inspect” is broad and does not state what project information is returned or how this differs from sibling inspection tools such as godot_scene_inspect or godot_resource_inspect. It is understandable but vague about scope.

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 description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It does not explain whether this tool should be used before scene/resource inspection or what conditions make it appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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