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. It states the tool finds project files but doesn't describe what 'find' entails (e.g., returns a list, handles errors, has performance considerations). It mentions searching under a directory but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, requires permissions, or has rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with mutation potential in file systems.

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 without unnecessary words. Every part ('Find Godot projects', 'project.godot files', 'under a directory') contributes directly to understanding, and there's no redundancy or fluff.

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 interacts with file systems. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., list format, error handling), behavioral traits like safety or performance, or how it differs from siblings. For a 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage but missing context, this is 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 fully documents both parameters ('directory' and 'recursive'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, format expectations, or edge cases. The baseline of 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 action ('Find') and resource ('Godot projects (project.godot files)') with specific scope ('under a directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_project_scenes' or 'list_project_scripts', which also list project-related items, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 sibling tools like 'list_project_scenes' or 'list_project_scripts', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is preferred. The only implied usage is finding project files, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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