run_project

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

Missing annotations place the full burden on the description. 'Capture output' is vague—it does not explain whether output is returned as a string, streamed, or logged. There is no mention of blocking behavior, error handling, or side effects like GUI windows appearing.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is optimally concise for the information conveyed.

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 likely returns important output (captured console), but no output schema exists and the description omits return format or how to retrieve it. Given sibling 'get_debug_output,' the differentiation is unclear, and critical behavioral context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters adequately. The description adds no extra context about parameter usage, defaults, or constraints, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 'Run the Godot project and capture output,' which specifies the action (run) and the resource (Godot project). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'launch_editor' or 'get_debug_output,' though the intent is generally clear.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'stop_project' or 'get_debug_output,' nor does it mention prerequisites like Godot installation or project validity.

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