Run Project

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'run'. The truncated phrase 'capture ou' suggests output capture but is unclear. No mention of side effects like stopping previous instances or system state changes.

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?

Extremely short (one truncated sentence). While concise, it sacrifices crucial information. A good description should be front-loaded but complete; this is not.

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 description is severely incomplete given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, destructive, output schema). It fails to explain what capturing output means, how to interpret output, or any prerequisites. Compare to sibling tools, this is inadequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, but descriptions are also truncated (e.g., scene: 'Optional:', timingMode: 'realtime follows display/VSync;'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters; it is too short to explain them.

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?

Description begins with 'Run the Godot project', which is essentially the same as the tool name, but adds 'and capture ou…' which hints at output capture. However, it's incomplete and does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like run_project_tests or game_* tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_project_tests or individual game interaction tools. The description is too short to include any usage context.

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