godot-mcp-pilot

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 states the tool retrieves metadata (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the asset doesn't exist), permissions, rate limits, or the return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed metadata about a specific asset') and lists key metadata fields. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what metadata is returned but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, it should do more to compensate, but the clear purpose and concise structure keep it from being inadequate.

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 both parameters ('projectPath' and 'assetPath') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying the asset is identified by a path. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified path formats or examples.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed metadata about a specific asset'), and lists the metadata fields (type, size, UID, import settings). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_assets' by focusing on a single asset's details rather than listing assets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other metadata tools like 'get_project_info' or 'get_project_settings'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project path), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_assets' (for browsing) or 'get_uid' (for UID-only retrieval). Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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