scan_game_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does declare 'read-only' and 'Godot 4 primary', which is useful. However, the schema exposes consent_granted and lock_into_bible parameters that strongly suggest consent gating and a persistent write into the project bible — side effects the description never acknowledges and which sit awkwardly against the blanket 'read-only' claim. Nothing is said about scan cost, depth, or failure modes on non-Godot projects.

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 with no filler; the read-only constraint and the Godot 4 focus come first. It is dense rather than padded, though it packs several unexpanded concepts (Game Profile, evidence, confidence) into one line.

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 a four-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not explain the consent gate, the lock_into_bible write path, what a Game Profile contains, or what 'evidence & confidence' means in the result. An agent could call it, but not confidently.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only game_path is loosely implied by 'existing game project folder'; project, consent_granted (default true), and especially lock_into_bible (default false) are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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 and resource: a read-only scan of an existing game project folder that produces a Game Profile with evidence and confidence. That is clearly distinguishable from sibling reads like get_game_profile (retrieval) or update_game_profile (mutation), though the description never names those siblings to make the boundary explicit.

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 phrase 'to build a Game Profile' implies this is the entry point before get_game_profile/update_game_profile, and 'existing game project folder' implies a prerequisite. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many profile-related siblings.

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