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. It states the tool retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, handles missing projects, returns structured data, or has any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 purpose ('Get metadata about a Godot project') and lists specific data points. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without waste, making it appropriately sized for its complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves metadata. It specifies what data is returned but not the format, structure, or potential errors. However, it's adequate for a simple read operation with a single parameter, though more context on behavior would improve completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'projectPath' documented as an absolute path. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'metadata about a Godot project', specifying what information is retrieved (name, version, scene/script/asset counts). It distinguishes from siblings like get_godot_version (version only) or list_project_scenes (scenes only) by covering multiple project aspects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing project, or compare to siblings like get_project_settings (settings vs. metadata) or list_projects (listing vs. detailed info). Usage is implied but not articulated.

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