project_info

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

The description clearly implies a read-only operation ('reads detailed info'), which is transparent given no annotations. However, it does not elaborate on what 'detailed info' includes or confirm no side effects, which would be helpful for full 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 sentence of 15 words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and primary parameter without waste.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It adequately explains what the tool does and what input it requires, though it could mention that the output is not formally defined.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, but the description adds semantic value by specifying that the parameter is 'project.godot file path,' providing context beyond the parameter's name alone.

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 uses a specific verb-resource combination: 'reads detailed info about a specific Godot project from its project.godot file path.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like project_list (which lists projects) and scene_list (scenes) by focusing on a single project's details.

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 implied usage (e.g., when you need details of a specific project), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_list or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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