Engine info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing safety. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the bridge-based query and the exact data fields returned (e.g., engine version, FPS, frame count). This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention potential errors (e.g., game not running) or the need for the bridge to be installed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the specific data points. Every word is informative, with no redundancy or 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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output. It lists the key fields returned, though a more detailed breakdown of the output structure would enhance completeness. The 'response_format' parameter partially addresses output specification.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on the parameters 'game_id' or 'response_format' beyond what the schema provides, so it adds no additional semantic value for parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'a running game via its bridge'. It lists exactly what information is returned (engine version, FPS, frame count, current scene, node count), making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like 'game_performance' or 'game_get_node_info'.

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 implies the tool is for querying engine status from a running game but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'game_os_info' or 'godot_project_info'). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving usage context somewhat implicit.

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