godot_detect_executable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'resolves' the executable, implying it might search system paths or validate the input, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like error handling (e.g., if no executable is found), side effects (e.g., caching the path), or performance considerations. More context on what 'resolve' entails is needed.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every part contributing essential information.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple parameter schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses details on behavior, error cases, and integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely initializes the server environment, more context on its role would be beneficial.

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 schema already documents the optional 'godot_executable' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's description of an optional explicit path. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Resolve') and the resource ('Godot 4.5+ executable'), specifying it's for the MCP server's use. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on executable detection rather than project/scene operations, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether Godot must be installed), or if it should be called before other tools. The description implies it sets up the executable for the server, but lacks explicit usage context.

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