godot-mcp-pilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stop') but does not describe what 'stop' entails (e.g., whether it gracefully shuts down, terminates processes, or affects project state), potential side effects, or any permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, effects, or return values, which are important for safe invocation. It meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details while being complete for the schema.

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 ('stop') and the target resource ('currently running Godot project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'run_project' or 'launch_editor' that start or manage projects. It uses a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 by referencing 'currently running Godot project', suggesting it should be used when a project is active, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_project' for starting). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the context.

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