Wick

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Reads'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., what happens if the path is invalid), permissions required, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Reads detailed info') and resource ('Godot project'), with no wasted words. It directly conveys the purpose without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (a read operation with a file path parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed info' includes, how errors are handled, or the return format. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 description adds meaning by specifying that 'projectGodotPath' refers to a 'project.godot file path', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's basic string type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is minimal compensation. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but with one parameter, 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not detailed semantics.

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 verb ('Reads') and resource ('detailed info about a specific Godot project'), specifying it comes from the 'project.godot file path'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'project_list' (which lists projects) and 'script_info' (which reads script info). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 doesn't mention when to choose 'project_info' over 'project_list' (for listing vs. detailed info) or 'script_info' (for script vs. project details), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid project path. This leaves usage context unclear.

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