Godot Project Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read-only operation ('Read project.godot and summarize'), implying no mutation. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the file is missing, whether it could fail on unparsed content, or the depth of the 'features' summarization. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the action (read), resource (project.godot), and output (summary of name/version/features). No filler or redundant content.

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 zero-parameter read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers what the tool does and what it returns. However, it doesn't specify whether 'features' refers to plugin/autoload config, input mappings, or other project.godot sections, which could lead to ambiguous expectations. For a simple metadata tool this is acceptable, but a bit more return-shape clarity would help.

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?

There are 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents everything. Per the rubric, 0 params gets a baseline of 4. The description further clarifies what output is expected (project name, version, features), which adds behavioral meaning to the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema.

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 a clear verb+resource: 'Read project.godot and summarize the project name, version and features.' It precisely identifies what is read (the project.godot file), what is produced (a summary of name/version/features), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_project_tree, godot_project_scan, and godot_project_search which operate on different aspects of the project.

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 when to use it (when you need project-level metadata/identity info), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that godot_project_tree is for hierarchy, godot_project_scan for file details, or godot_project_grep for searching content. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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