get_project_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it specifies the return shape in both modes and discloses the error condition when projectPath is set without a project.godot. This is useful behavioral context not available in structured fields.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameter behavior, then return shape. No filler; every sentence adds signal.

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, the description compensates by specifying the exact return objects for both modes, and covers the error case. Fully adequate for a single-optional-parameter read tool, with only minor gaps (e.g. no mention of projectPath format expectations).

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 description re-states the parameter's meaning, but it also adds value beyond the schema by explaining the omit-to-get-version-only behavior and its purpose. Slightly redundant with the schema description but the mode semantics are genuinely clarified.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (metadata about a Godot project), then enumerates exactly which fields are returned. Clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_project_files, get_project_settings, and get_scene_dependencies by focusing on project-level metadata.

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?

Explains the two usage modes clearly: full metadata with projectPath, or just the Godot version when projectPath is omitted, explicitly noting the capability-check use case. Does not name sibling alternatives for related tasks (e.g. get_project_settings for configuration), but the behavioral mode guidance is strong.

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