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 implies a read-only operation by using 'List', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it returns structured data or raw text, potential errors (e.g., invalid project path), or performance considerations. The description is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the basic action.

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 action ('List all custom input actions') and adds necessary context ('defined in the project') without waste. The parenthetical UI path is concise and relevant for human understanding, though not critical for the agent.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks completeness in behavioral details (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage context. With no annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple list operation.

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 'projectPath' clearly documented. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 ('all custom input actions'), and specifies the location context ('defined in the project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_assets' or 'list_project_scenes' by focusing on input actions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_project_settings' which might include similar data, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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., project must be loaded), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_project_settings' that might retrieve related information. The UI path hint ('Project > Project Settings > Input Map') is contextual but not a usage guideline for the agent.

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