game_eval

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

Annotations are empty (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states execution without mentioning potential side effects, security risks, error behavior, or that it can modify game state. This is insufficient for an arbitrary code execution tool.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with purpose. However, it omits important details that could be included concisely, such as safety warnings or return value handling.

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?

The tool executes arbitrary GDScript, which is highly complex and powerful. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is severely incomplete—missing information on return types, error behavior, side effects, and security implications.

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% (the 'code' parameter is described). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Execute GDScript in the running game,' which is a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'godot_eval' by specifying runtime context, but does not explicitly differentiate from other runtime tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'godot_eval' or 'game_call_method.' The only guidance is about using 'return' for values, which is a parameter usage hint, not a tool selection guideline.

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