run_project

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

Annotations are all false, providing no positive hints. The description adds context by specifying non-interactive behavior and console output capture, and clarifies what it does not do. While it doesn't disclose potential side effects, it's adequate 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?

Two sentences, directly to the point. Every word adds value; no fluff. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core behavior and output (console output). It distinguishes from run_interactive and mentions non-interactive mode. No output schema, but the description indicates what to expect.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the description text doesn't add additional parameter meaning beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool runs a Godot project non-interactively and captures console output, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_interactive by explicitly noting what this tool does not do.

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?

Explicitly says 'No input, screenshots, or state queries — use run_interactive for those,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. This meets the highest standard for usage direction.

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