Статус Godot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it functions even without a discoverable project, and in that case the other tools fail with no_project — useful for sequencing agent calls.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the returned state list, the second carries usage and the no_project caveat. Nothing is padded, though the enumerated field list is dense and slightly list-like rather than prose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what the tool returns — and it does, field by field (version, root, host, render mode, import readiness, capabilities, limits). Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering the single param, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, including the note that refresh_api rebuilds the API index and is slow (~7s). The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 resource (MCP server + Godot engine state) and enumerates exactly what it reports: version, project root, headless host status, render mode, import readiness, capabilities, limits. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling godot_project_info, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Вызывайте в начале работы' gives an explicit trigger condition (call first). It also states the failure-mode behavior: it works even when no project is found, while other tools then return no_project. No alternative siblings are named, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete.

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