run_headless

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'headlessly (no window)' and 'for a fixed duration', but fails to explain what happens after execution, how errors are reported, whether the call blocks, or the nature of the return value. This is a significant gap for a tool that runs a project.

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?

The description is concise, consisting of two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes only essential information, such as the binary requirement, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more details about the execution behavior, such as what constitutes success, how errors are surfaced, and whether the tool is blocking. The current description leaves critical operational aspects unspecified, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.

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 low coverage (33%) with only scene_path described. The description hints at scene_path via 'runs a specific scene' and timeout_ms via 'fixed duration', adding some context beyond the schema. However, it does not explicitly define parameters, defaults, or how they map to the two modes, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 states a specific action ('Runs the Godot project headlessly') and a clear purpose ('to catch parse/runtime errors'), with an alternative mode for running a specific scene. It clearly distinguishes from editor_run_scene by emphasizing headless execution, which is a key differentiator among 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?

The description implies usage for validating a project's error-free state via headless execution, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over editor_run_scene or other tools, nor does it mention any exclusions. The requirement for the godot4 binary is a prerequisite rather than usage guidance.

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