godot-mcp-pilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists assets with optional filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'list'), pagination, rate limits, permissions needed, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of file paths vs. metadata). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 ('List all asset files in a project') and adds a useful detail ('Optionally filter by type'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 likely returns a list of assets. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. This is adequate for a simple list tool but has clear gaps in transparency.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (projectPath as absolute path, assetType as filter with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'Optionally filter by type,' which aligns with the schema's optional assetType parameter. 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 ('List') and resource ('asset files in a project'), with examples of asset types (textures, audio, meshes, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects or list_project_scenes by focusing on assets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_asset_info (which likely retrieves details about a specific asset).

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 usage for listing assets with optional filtering by type, but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like get_asset_info (for detailed info on a single asset) or other list_* tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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