Информация о проекте

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about cost, size of the returned data, or that the boolean flags gate expensive sections. It contributes nothing the annotations don't already imply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the summary scope and using a colon-delimited list of contents. Dense but well organized with zero filler, appropriate for an info tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and the enumerated contents effectively serve that role. It is complete enough for a low-complexity read-only tool, though it omits how the optional boolean flags alter the response and how this differs from sibling project tools.

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 coverage is only 67% (the 'autoloads' flag has no description), so the description must compensate, and it partially does by listing 'autoloads', 'input-карта' and 'глобальные классы (class_name)' among the summary contents, letting the reader infer these flags toggle those sections. However, it never states that these are optional opt-in flags, leaving the toggle semantics to 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 names a specific resource (the Godot project) and enumerates the exact contents of the summary: name, version/features, main scene, autoloads, layers, input map, plugins, global classes, export presets. This enumeration implicitly distinguishes it from sibling godot_project_settings, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from that or other project-level siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as godot_project_settings or godot_status. The agent must infer that this is the read-only overview tool from the description's content alone.

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