run_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates the tool runs the project (mutable action) and captures output, but does not specify side effects, whether the run is blocking, or what 'capture output' precisely entails (stdout/stderr). This is insufficient for a run 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 a single direct sentence: 'Run the Godot project and capture output.' It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, whether the run is synchronous, or how the captured output is delivered. Sibling tools like godot_run and stop_project suggest more context is needed for proper use.

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 adds no additional meaning to the parameters, but the schema already provides adequate descriptions (projectPath: 'Godot project path', scene: 'Optional: Specific scene to run').

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 clearly states the tool runs a Godot project and captures output, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_project and export_project by focusing on running and output capture.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_run, or any prerequisites such as requiring a valid project path or the editor status. The description lacks when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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