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 states the tool sets the main scene, implying a write operation, but fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., project file modifications), permissions required, or error conditions (e.g., invalid scene paths). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what happens on success/failure), usage context, and return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective invocation.

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 clear documentation for both parameters ('projectPath' and 'scenePath'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as path validation rules or examples. However, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter meanings.

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 ('Set') and the target ('project's main (startup) scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_main_scene' or 'set_project_setting', but the specificity of 'main (startup) scene' provides enough context to infer its unique role.

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 like 'get_main_scene' (for retrieval) or 'set_project_setting' (for other project configurations). It also lacks information about prerequisites, such as whether the project must be open or the scene must exist, leaving usage context unclear.

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