run_interactive

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

The description discloses meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it injects an MCP input receiver, enables capabilities like send_key_sequence and game_state, and communicates via TCP. It doesn't detail side effects or cleanup, but it adds valuable transparency for a run 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by capabilities and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool: it states the purpose, lists enabled features, and gives an alternative. It could mention lifecycle details or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for an AI agent.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for its parameters (projectPath and scene), so the description isn't required to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema handles semantics adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a Godot project with MCP input receiver injected.' It clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings by saying 'Use instead of run_project for interactive testing.'

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?

It explicitly provides usage guidance with 'Use instead of run_project for interactive testing,' naming the alternative and the context in which to choose this tool. This tells the agent when to prefer run_interactive over run_project.

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