godot-mcp-pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific project access, what happens with invalid paths, or what format the path returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it optimally concise while still being informative.

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 simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, what the return value represents, or how it fits within the broader tool ecosystem.

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% with the single parameter 'projectPath' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('project's configured main (startup) scene path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as retrieving configuration rather than modifying it, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_project_settings' or 'get_project_info'.

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 'get_project_settings' or 'list_project_scenes'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate for related information needs.

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