godot_run_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Run' implies execution, it doesn't describe what 'running a scene' entails (e.g., launching the Godot editor? Starting a game instance?), whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to existing running instances, or what output/errors to expect. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that executes code.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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 scenes (a potentially complex operation with side effects), the description is inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to address critical aspects like what 'running' entails, success/failure indicators, or how it differs from similar execution tools in the sibling set.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters are documented in the structured fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path resolution precedence, headless mode implications, or executable version compatibility). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('a specific Godot scene from an existing project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'godot_run_project' or 'godot_run_with_capture', which would require more specific scope clarification.

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_run_project' (which runs the main scene) or 'godot_run_with_capture' (which captures output). There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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