Запуск игры

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, idempotent=false, covering safety basics. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it operates in a headless host, render=true opens a window, mode=step auto-pauses after execution, and mode=stop unloads the scene. It does not detail what happens to unsaved state, but the gaps are minor given 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?

A single dense paragraph: purpose first, then mode-by-mode explanation, then a crucial workflow note. Every sentence adds information; nothing is repetitive or wasteful.

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 an 11-parameter tool with 45% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core modes and the screenshot workflow, but omits guidance on several parameters (paused, restart, fixed_fps, timeout_ms) and their mode dependencies. An agent can handle common cases but may struggle with edge configurations.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters (mode, frames/seconds, render, time_scale, max_fps) but leaves paused, restart, fixed_fps, and timeout_ms completely unexplained, and does not fully clarify which parameters apply to which modes. Partial compensation, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (управление) and resource (запущенной игрой внутри headless-хоста Godot), then enumerates each mode's effect, making the tool's scope unmistakable. It also explicitly distinguishes the workflow from godot_screenshot, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?

Provides clear context for each mode (e.g., step is for step debugging) and an explicit workflow for seeing the game: call mode=start with render=true, then godot_screenshot. However, it does not state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like godot_runtime.

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