attach_project

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only restates the tool's purpose without explaining what 'attach' entails, such as whether it establishes a persistent connection, requires any prerequisites, or what happens if the editor is not running. This is a significant lack of transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and condition without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not exceptionally complete. It covers the key condition ('already running') but does not elaborate on the attachment process or how it relates to launch_editor and detach_project. Overall, it meets the minimum viable standard.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. No parameter semantics are required.

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 uses a specific verb 'attach' with a clear resource 'already running Godot Editor', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_editor (which would start a new editor) and detach_project (which would disconnect). It exactly states the tool's function.

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 'already running' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when the editor is already active. It implies an alternative (launch_editor) without explicitly naming it, but the sibling list makes the intended usage clear. No exclusions are stated, but the context is sufficient.

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