check_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the runtime probe is always present, never errors on the runtime probe itself, and errors only if projectPath is set but lacks project.godot. This goes beyond the annotation by disclosing error conditions and the always-present runtime block.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, the optional-parameter behavior is stated next, and the error condition is last. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, but it still summarizes the return shape. It covers the optional parameter behavior, error conditions, and usage context. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already describes projectPath. The description adds value by explaining the consequence of omitting it (returns only Godot version and runtime status) and the error condition when set to a non-project directory. This is more than the schema provides, though the schema already covers the basic meaning.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('project metadata'), enumerates the exact fields returned (name, path, Godot version, structure summary), and adds a distinguishing runtime block. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_project_settings and get_project_files by describing the metadata + runtime status 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?

Explicitly instructs to use as the first call before driving a running project, and explains the optional projectPath behavior ('Omit projectPath for just the Godot version and runtime status'). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies when not to use it (when you need files/settings, use siblings).

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