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. It discloses that the tool 'Runs Godot headlessly,' which is a key behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files or just refreshes metadata), or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a usage guideline. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, and behavioral aspect (headless execution). However, it lacks details on output or error scenarios, slightly reducing completeness for a tool that modifies project state.

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 the 'projectPath' parameter fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format examples or constraints), resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 ('Re-import all project assets to refresh Godot 4 UIDs') and the resource involved ('project assets'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_uid' (which retrieves UIDs) or 'list_assets' (which lists assets). It explicitly mentions running Godot headlessly, which further clarifies the mechanism.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use after adding or moving resource files'), which directly addresses the context for invoking it. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on UID refresh rather than creation, listing, or editing operations.

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