headless_manage

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. Each operation's one-liner implies some behavior: export_project_cli 'Triggers a headless project export'; reimport_assets_cli 'Reimport modified assets' – these hint at write effects. However, there is no disclosure of side effects, prerequisites (e.g., Godot executable, project config), or potential errors. The description is behaviorally informative but not comprehensive for a multi-action 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?

The description is well-structured: a summary line, a bulleted list of operations with parameters and one-line purposes, and a note on call format. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses whitespace effectively. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. Slightly long due to the five ops, but each earns its place.

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 complexity (five distinct operations) and the presence of an output schema (not shown here), the description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' in depth. It omits important context like error handling, session requirements, and whether operations modify the project (export and reimport are implied writes). The lack of explicit usage guidance and behavioral detail leaves an agent needing to infer too much.

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 zero descriptions for properties (op, params, session_id). The description compensates by listing each operation's parameters with defaults (e.g., run_script(script_path="", inline_code="")), and the operation text gives some semantic meaning (e.g., 'Execute a GDScript file or inline code snippet'). However, not all parameters are explained – is_debug is never defined, and the generic 'params' container is left opaque. This partial coverage earns a 3.

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's purpose: 'Standalone Headless Engine & CLI Management.' It enumerates five distinct operations with specific verbs (run, export, reimport, inspect), each with a resource and intent. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_manage or editor_manage, which focus on different scopes. The title alone would be ambiguous, but the bullet list removes doubt.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate (e.g., for non-headless operations) or any exclusions. It simply lists operations without routing the agent to siblings. Given the large sibling set, this is a significant gap.

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