Godot Run Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state that this launches a process, what happens to an already-running project, whether it blocks, or what failure modes exist (e.g., no binary found, already running). It also doesn't differentiate from godot_restart_project behaviorally — both involve running the project. For a launch tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise — a single sentence with no filler. While it's under-specified, there's zero wasted text. For scoring conciseness as a positive trait, it earns a 4 because nothing is extraneous, though brevity here veers toward incomplete rather than economical.

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 launches a runtime process with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is substantially incomplete. It doesn't explain the args parameter semantics (could be CLI flags passed to Godot), what projectPath expects (absolute path? relative?), return behavior, or error conditions. Sibling tools like godot_runtime_status and godot_runtime_logs suggest a runtime monitoring ecosystem, but this description doesn't connect to that 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 0%, meaning the two parameters (args, projectPath) are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description mentions 'project' but never references either parameter. With 0% coverage and no parameter info in the description, this fails to compensate for the gap — the agent has no idea what args or projectPath accept or how they're used.

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 states 'Launch the Godot project' which is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, the conditional 'when a Godot binary can be discovered' is somewhat vague and doesn't specify what happens when no binary is found. It provides basic purpose but lacks the specificity needed to fully distinguish it from siblings like godot_restart_project or godot_stop_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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like godot_restart_project (restart), godot_stop_project (stop), and godot_run_project (run), the description doesn't clarify that this is the initial-launch tool. The conditional 'when a Godot binary can be discovered' hints at a prerequisite but doesn't explain how to confirm the binary exists or what to do if it cannot be found.

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