godot_run_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool runs a project but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it blocks until completion, what happens on errors, if it requires Godot installation, or what output/feedback is provided. 'Run' implies execution but lacks operational details.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a tool that executes projects (potentially complex with runtime behavior), no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description leave significant gaps. It doesn't explain what 'run' entails operationally, success/failure indicators, or integration with other tools like 'godot_run_with_capture'. Incomplete for execution context.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'headless' mode implications or 'project_path' validation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Run') and target ('a Godot project'), specifying it uses the 'current main scene'. It distinguishes from 'godot_run_scene' which likely runs a specific scene file, but doesn't explicitly mention this sibling differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'godot_run_scene' or 'godot_start_project'. The description implies usage for running projects with their configured main scene, but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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