godot-mcp-pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that execution happens 'headlessly' and that the script is 'wrapped in a SceneTree subclass automatically,' which adds important context about the execution environment. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or what happens when the timeout is reached.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context and examples. There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an adequate job explaining what the tool does and how to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format (what 'output' means), error conditions, or what happens when the script fails to execute, leaving some gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining that 'scriptBody' contains 'statements to execute (no func wrapper needed)' and that they run 'inside _init() of a SceneTree subclass,' but this mostly reinforces what's in the schema rather than providing significant additional semantics.

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 specific action ('Run a GDScript snippet headlessly inside a project') and resource ('GDScript snippet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_project' (which runs the full project) or 'analyze_script' (which analyzes without execution). It provides concrete examples of what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Great for quick tests and calculations that need Godot's built-in types'), providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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